He
.C.?- THREE SPEECHFs
Bé4 THREE speeches
the ſon, eiwari glaſs, e.g., &#4,
THE PACIFIC SCANDAL.
* NUMBER onE.
THE BOWMAN WILLE SPEECH.
On the evening of Tuesday, the 26th August, 1873, shortly after the prorogation, and
before the meeting of the Royal Commission, Mr. Blake addressed his old constituents in
the Town Hall at Bowmanville. Having spoken for some time upon other topics, Mr.
Blake proceeded as follows:— - -
I have come also for another purpose. I have come because I have been told, and I
beliève, that it is my duty to say somewhat to my fellow countrymen on the great topic
which is now agitating the public mind. I cannot hope to say much that is new, but what
I do say shall at any rate be, according to my convictions, true. The subject is of such
yast scope that I cannot hope to treat it in one address. I shall therefore endeavor to point
out what I believe to be the true history of the matter up to a certain period, reserving for
another time and place the detailed expression of my views on the later phases of the story.
In order fully to realize the situation, it is necessary that we should go back to the close of
1871. You will recollect that the Canadian Government which met Parliament in 1867
with avery large majºr º-with a majority in the whole of about 75 votes, and a majority
sºona tºe Provinces of Ontario and Quebec of some 47 votes—had during the four preceding
**en engaged in building up its political strength by means which we condemned—by
grants of the public moneys, given in some cases almost openly, in other cases in fact, upon
a consideration of the political opinions of the constituency or its member, and not solely,
as we contended these grants should be given, upon public grounds and with reference to
the general interest. There can be no doubt that owing to the demoralization of public
sentiment in various quarters from various political occurrences, this atrocious doctrine
received considerable countenance, and the practice of it produced considerable effect within
* > - Government Preparations for Election of 1872. , - . .
the walls of Parliament and in several of the constituencies. The last session approached,
and with it came the preparations for the general elections—that great trial, the verdict in
which would establish whether or not the Government retained the confidence of the country.
Some of the principal preparations of the Government were these:—They determined
to play the part of Conservatives as to the Election Law ; to insist on retaining that law,
which was vicious in two important particulars. First, in that it gave to the Government
university of Mºº"
“” GENERAL LIBRARY




4 • MR. BLAKE's
the power of determining the order in which the elections should be held, a circumstance by
no means insignificant in its effect on the general result ; because, as we all know, the effect
of carrying twenty or thirty constituencies at the commencement of a general election may
be very great. It is calculated to excite the hopes and animate the exertions of the winning
party, to damp the spirits and depress the energies of those who are losing, and to:
transfer from their ranks to those of their adversaries that too large body of weak-kneed
and faint-hearted voters whose convictions of the right are too feeble to withstand their
fondness for the winning side. The Government determined to retain to itself the advan-
tage of fixing the order in which the great trials to take place before the people between the
two parties should take place, and so to arrange the elections as to give themselves every
advantage, and to inflict on their adversaries all possible discouragement. But the second
particular in which the Election Law was vicious is of infinitely greater consequence. I
refer to the machinery for the trial of controverted elections. We knew well the evils of
this law ; we had experienced them for many years. So strong had been the popular feeling
that remedies had been applied in several of the Provinces, but it was quite obvious that
the advantages of undue 'influence and corruption were too great to be thrown away by a
Government which could procure means to exercise undue influence and to practice corrup-
Gigantic Scheme Of Corruption. ty
tion, and so they determined to resist this great reform. Another preparation which the
Government made for the coming contest, was to arrange for the means of influence and
corruption. I need hardly tell you that this preparation was the Pacific Railway charter.
That gigantic scheme was to be accomplished after a fashion unexampled in modern times,
and calculated to give to the Government powers and facilities for influence and corruption
of a most extraordinary character. The Government determined that two private com-
panics who applied for incorporation, should be chartered on precisely the same conditions.
But they stated that in order that the country might not be at the mercy of either of these
companies or both, in case there should be a combination, they would ensure competition by
taking to themselves power to charter another company. They also determined to take.
to themselves power to agree upon all the terms and stipulations of the contract, with the
exception of some very general provisions which were contained in the Act of Parliament—
provisions so general as to give an extremely wide discretion as to the disposal of the money
and land subsidies. They took the power of making the company as they chose. They
assumed the control of the $30,000,000 in cash and 50,000,000 acres of land, and the large
additional acreage for the two branch lines. It is difficult for the mind to apprehend the mag-
nitude of these figures. $30,000,000 is a national treasure; from 50,000,000 acres you can
carve several independent States. But these were not the limits of the affair. The nation*... .
control over another 50,000,000 acres, the power of dealing with that immense additionſ] area
was also demanded for themselves by the Government. They went further still. By this exº~.
ordinary Act, it was provided that an Order of the Privy Council might over-ride the order 2 ”
of Parliament, the provisions which Parliament had, during the same session, deliberately º
determined to be wise and needful in the public interest. This enactment, ceding to the |
Executive the control, unchecked by Parliament, of transactions of such enormous magni.
tude, gave a means of exercising undue influence, and of acquiring funds for improper pur-
poses, altogether beyond the means which had been in the possession of any Government of
Canada at any previous time. Now, sir, these were the weapons which the Government.
y The Ring of Jobbers.
were preparing for the struggle. There was another body also preparing for that memorable
meeting—the whole army of speculators. They saw before them in the prospect of this
great railway, no ordinary contract, no ordinary job. The treasury of a nation, and the area
of independent States, a predominant and commanding position in the country, were all to
be the prize of some fortunate ring of speculators, and they too were making preparations to
w


* , ºs
º #
ºv4 & 14-6-43 wºrs &
tº . [3]. - 3 & SPEECH AT BOWMAN WILLE, 5.
influence Government, Legislature and people in favor of their particular views, and, in
furtherance of their private and personal objects. You know I do not state this from repute
merely, or from rumour. You know it from what has been published of the correspondence
of these gentry. Let us look for a moment at what they wrote. Let us listen to the utter-
ances of these birds of ill omen. They saw before them a mighty carcass, and where the
carcassis, the eagles—but I will not so degrale the name of the noble bird—no, the cormo-
rants and vultures were gathered together ready and anxious to batten on their country's
vitals. What says James DCaty, junior :—
“I had some confidential communication with a member of the Government, when in
Ottawa, of great importance to us. I want to profit by it. We must be prepared for a
fight, and now is the time to begin. There has been—as you are no doubt aware—a new
Government formed in Ontario, the Opposition element preponderating in it, although a
friend of the Ottawa Government is a member, and I may say to you he went in on the
advice of Sir John. The result may be that this Local Government will eventually be
driven from Brown, and that the entire party will side to a certain extent with the Ottawa
Government, or it may eventually go in direct opposition to them, especially at the next
elections this year. Our Bill and a rangements unust therefore be made this session to be
safe under all circumstances. I am in that position to advise a united effort in co-operation
with the Government to carry this thing successfully. To do this, money will be necessary,
and a considerable sum. I therefore write to say that I ought to be supplied at once with
$50,000, and another $50,000 when the scssion opens, and I think that will do it. I will
give an account for the whole of it, and I think I can guarantee a satisfactory charter. Of
course, this is not to be whispered this side of the linº, and on your side only as far as neces-
sary to obtain it. It would play havoc with us if it were known that any money was in
hand connected with it. I see now the best use to make of it, where prompt action is neces-
sary. A letter of credit to Pattorson & Beaty, on Bank of Montreal, or Bank of British
North America—I prefer the Bank of British North America for various reasons. . It is
umpolitical, &c., and the same notice would not be taken of it there as in the Bank of Mon;
treal. Of course, I always understood you were prepared to come to the requirements of
the case when necessary, and I therefore wife in this way. It is now necessary to redeem
myself, to satisfy parties that must be satisfied, and to ask no questiºns at present. Ker-
steman does not know of this. It must not be known, and will be the more effectual the
Tess it is known.”
}
Hark again to Mr. James Beaty —
“I have had about three months' correspondence both by letter and personal inter-
view of the first importance to the Government, and all this with the ultimate ºbject on my
art of settling the Pacific. The project had more of direct reference to the elections, and
*... understood you to say that some thousands of dollars would be no object in refer-
ence to our common object.”
Again—
“The Government have now taken the matter in hand, and will have, it is expected,
$100,000 subscribed in a few days to promote their influence in the country, which might
have been done under our direct control, and with special reference to our Scheme.”
What were these unhallowed mysteries between the Canadian Government and James
Beaty But let us not waste our time, let us turn from this minor villain, and listen to the
utterances of a bigger and still baser man. In the same month Sir Hugh Allan writes —
“DEAR SIR.—It seems pretty certain that, in addition to money payments, the follow-
ing stock will have to be distributed;—(naming various sums and parties to amount of
$850,000) To meet this I propose that we give up of our stock as follows:–C. M. Smith,
$250,000 ; G. W. McMullen, $250,000 ; Hugh Allan, $350,000; total, $850,000.
He goes on to say :—
“Please say if this is agreeable to you ! I do not think we can do with less, and may
have to give more... I do not think we will require more than $100,000 in cash, but I am
not sure as yet. Who am I to draw on for money when it is wanted, and what proof of pay-
ment will be required You are aware I cannot get receipts. Our Legislature meets on the
11th of April, and I am already deep in preparation for the game. Every day brings np
some new difficulty to be encountered, but I hope to meet them all successfully. Write to
me immediately. Yours truly, IJUGH ALLAN.”
6 * MR. BLAKE's
And then comes the postscript. Like the ladies' letters, the most important part is the
postscript,-“I think you will have to go it blind in the matter of money—cash payments.
I have already paid $8,500 and have not a voucher, and cannot get one.” There, Mr. Chair.
man, is the language of this gang, working their work in darkness, because their deeds were
evil. Urging the necessity of silence, pointing out the impossibility of getting vouchers or
receipts, and saying, each in his own language, that their correspondents must ask no
questions, but go it blind in the matter of money, I think, considering the difference in
situation, in standing, and in every attribute of the two men, that there is a wonderful.
family likeness between them notwithstanding ; and I suppose it is only to be accounted
for by the fact that they were of the same class—engaged about the same dirty,
business, proposing the same dirty means, and so revealing in private that baseness
of heart which no scruples of conscience, but their dread of the public wrath, caused them
to conceal from the public mind. The discovery of these letters has disgraced their writers
in the sight of every honest man. Now you have had a glimpse at the preparations of the
speculators; you have heard a short extract from the language of the prince of bribers
and of his humble follower, Beaty ; and I shall next direct your attention to the
preparations which were being made by another body in the State. The Liberal
party was making ready to foil the devices of these corrupters of public morality, the Gov-
Anti-Bribery Bills voted down.
ernment and the speculators. We were proposing to offer to the consideration of Parliament and
the country, additional grounds for reposing confidence in our policy and for reversing in 1872
the verdict given for the Government in 1867. We proposed measures which, had they been
received by the Government—had they been heeded by Parliament—would have averted the
very great scandal which has since arisen, and saved the country from descending into the
humiliating position in which, I am sorry to say, it stands this day. We recalled, sir, in anti-
cipation of the great contest, the fundamental principles of liberty. We were not forgetful
of the maxim that public virtue is the foundation of popular Government; we were not
forgetful of the great truth that unless there exists in the people a high degree of public
virtue, they will be unequal to the grave responsibility of self-government. We remem-
bered that whatever tends to vitiate, degrade, or weaken that principle, tends to the
destruction of popular Government, which is endangered by the introduction of motives
conflicting with that principle, and must, the moment such motives become prevalent
inevitably fall. When that high sense of public virtue has been so far weakened as to
leave the country practically at the mercy of men who, by money or influence, control the
exercise of the suffrage, they have succeeded in converting that which has been regarded as
the shield of liberty into an instrument of tyranny. Feeling that the exercise of the
suffrage, the greatest political right that belongs to a freeman, must, amongst the mass of
the electors, be based on public grounds, not upon grounds of private affection, or of pre-
judice, and far, far less upon the basis of undue influence, or of the purchase of the vote-
we regretted to see that there had been growing, from General Election to Generallèlection, a
system of bribery and corruption. We were aware that, pressed by similar difficulties,
the longing for a remedy had so far animated the people of the old land that they had
pressed upon Parliament, and Parliament had agreed to the new election law. We were
proposing to do not only what had been done in Great Britain, but what had been done by
the Local Legislatures in our own Province, in New Brunswick, and in British Columbia.
Thus a large majority of the constituencies of the Dominion, in their local elections, were
ruled by that law, and we felt that we could do no greater public service than forthwith to
make it the law of the Dominion. We felt that it was a law which would give comparatively
cheap, speedy, and certain justice in the trial of controverted elections. We felt that that
law, severe and harsh as some erroneously call it, would really be most beneficent, fulfilling
the highest function of a law, acting as a preventative, and not simply as a punishment, of
SPEECH AT BOWMAN WILLE, & 7
bribery and corruption. I say a preventative, for the candidate and his supporters, knowing
that under its provisions the use of undue means would ensure defeat and failure in the
accomplishment of their object, would be restrained from the crime. Under the existing
law, so great was the difficulty of trying such charges, so enormous the expense, so marked
the uncertainty, that to have obtained, by whatever means, a seat, was, for all practical
purposes, to have secured it for the entire Parliament. The new law, and one for simul-
taneous polling, were pressed upon the consideration of Parliament. But the Government
said no. They told us in grave, yet impassioned tones, that it would be most improper to
ask the Judges to try such cases, even should they be willing to consent. They told us
that it was impossible for the Judges to find time to try them, even if it would be proper to
ask them ; and they referred us to a single case in Ireland, where the language used by the
Judge produced great excitement, as a conclusive reason why we should not adopt that law
in this country. Of the weight which, in their own minds, they attached to these arguments,
you and I can well judge, knowing, as we do, that no sooner had their true object been
accomplished than on the meeting of the new Parliament the same law was proposed by
themselves. Now, may we not justly conclude that their true object was simply and solely
to obtain the benefit in the coming struggle of the evil system which they so soon afterwards
agreed to abandon ? But it was absolutely needful for them just then to retain the old law,
because without that their means of undue influence and corruption would have been of little
avail. As I have said, they had to go further. They proceeded to find the means of influence
Unprecedented Character of the Pacific Railway Bill.
and corruption. They introduced and carried, in spite of our opposition, a law giving them
those extraordinary powers with reference to the Pacific Railway contract. We all remember
the often quoted saying of a Minister at the Toronto Convention of '67, that the Intercolonial
Railway would give Sir John A. Macdonald ten years' lease of power, and we know how far
that saying has been verified. But it would puzzle anybody to determine how many times
more powerful the Pacific Railway scheme would be than the Intercolonial, the enterprise
being infinitely more gigantic, and the mode upon which it was to be carried out infinitely
better adapted to give unlimited power to the Executive of the day. When that measure
was proposed we contended that a constitutional principle was involved. We were told in
reply that the powers of the Executive would be used in a proper way, and that
º, no harm would result. But we contended that a violation of sound principle would produce
'unsound practice. Practice is simply the reduction of principle into action ; and to be
sound in practice you must be sound in principle also. Now, sir, the principle which was
violated was this, that in free Constitutions the Executive power must be guarded, limited,
and restramed, and must not be permitted to encroach on the rights of the people and their
representatives. Executive power it is which has at all times been the great foe of liberty.
The name under which this power is exercised is wholly immaterial. Whether it be a King,
President, or Cabinet which wields the Executive power, the constant tendency of those
possessed of such power, is to invade the domain of the other branches of the Govern-
ment and to enlarge their own jurisdiction. In the great struggle which subsisted for so
many years in England, out of which the liberties you now hold were gradually evolved, this
was the main subject of contention. This lesson has been graven on the hearts of the
British people, and we must never for an instant forget it. I warn you to beware lest the
length of time since that struggle ended should make you heedless of the prize which itsecured.
By gradual steps, here a little and there a little, the liberties of a people may be invaded,
and results accomplished by degrees which, had they been proposed as one operation, would
have been rejected as monstrous. It is then the duty of every representative of the people
narrowly to watch any proposal which may tend to give larger authority to the Executive
than it has, according to the well-established principles of the Constitution. These principles
were violated when we gave the Executive power to conclude irrevocably, and without the
y
8 MR. BLAKE's
assent of Parliament, such a gigantic contract as that for the construction of the Pacifié
Tailway. An ordinary steam-packet contract is submitted to Parliament for approval. There
have been two contracts made in the last year with Sir Hugh—one, the contract for carrying
mails across the ocean for a short period, and for an amount, too large, indeed, but still
insignificant compared with the Pacific. That comparatively triſling affair was properly
submitted to Parliament ; but the other and enormous contract made with Sir Hugh for the
Pacific Railway, was left in the hands of the Executive without any power being reserved to
Parliament. Can these things be reconciled But argument was vain ; the Government
prevailed, and certainly at the close of the session it seemed as if they had won the battle.
They had maintained the bad election law which gave them facilities for bribery and corrup-
tion, and they had obtained power to make the mighty contract which was to give them
The Ring go to Work.
unlimited inſluence and funds for corruption. In the meantime the bribers had been at work.
We know that Sir Hugh received some $40,000 during the session from his American associates
for the secret purpose referred to in the latter part of the letter which I read. IIe spent
the money, he tells us, in polluting the press, the bar, the pulpit, and, I suppose, he entered
the legislative halls as well. To him no place was sacred ; in his eyes every man had his
price ; and in his mind the only questions were, how cheap he could be bought and whether
he was worth the money. There has arison in these days, through the extension of the
press. a means of influencing public opinion more potent than any known to our ancestors.
You know there have been no speeches on recent developments in this great scandal, but
you are familiar with the arguments on both sides because you read the papers. But what
confidence can you place in those utterances, when you are told by the man who is said to be
the representative man of Canada, commercially, that he bought and subsidised the
newspapers and so polluted public opinion at its source : He undoubtedly gathered
around him a very strong influence. He combined certain local interests in Quebec
with the great scheme he had in hand. There was a very strong desire to promote a
railway from Montreal to Ottawa, and thence westward. This he took hold of and identified
it with the Pacific Railway scheme. He told those locally interested that both
should stand or fall together—that if he obtained the contract for the Pacific
Railway their anticipations would be more than realized. And having so gained their con-
fidence, he took his place. He stood a gigantic figure in the path of the Government, and
The Electoral Contest of 1872. *
dominated the situation. The Liberal party, in the meanwhile, was preparing to fight the battle
on the grounds which it had indicated during the preceding session, confident that it was
sustained by the public voice. And, Sir, this confidence was not misplaced. The arrangements.
which had been made for the earlier seriously contested elections to suit the convenience and
wishes of the Government, turned out most propitious to the Liberal party. Seat after seat was
wrested ſrom the Government in Ontario. In Quebec Sir Geo. Cartier's election and those
of other Ministerialists were in imminent danger, and it became evident that unless Some
new lever were brought into action, they would be lost. The situation of the Government
The Government and the Ring Come to Terms.
was desperate. Under these circumstances, in the last of July and the first of August, they
yielded to Sir Hugh Allan. His influence and money had become not merely desirable, but
absolutely necessary to them. Adverse as Sir George Carticr had been at an earlier period
to Sir Hugh Alian's pretensions, he yielded, and arrangements were made between these
persons satisfactory to Sir Hugh Allan. What precisely, was the assurance Sir Hugh ob-
tained is matter of controversy, but those who are well-informed with regard to the history
of the negotiations, say that there were more formal assurances than those . Sir Hugh has
produced. But it is enough for our purpose to know that assurances were given which Sir
*
SPEECH AT BOWMAN WILLE. 9:
Hugh accepted as satisfactory. Well, the matter was to be kept quiet till after the elections,
partly because embarrassment might be created in Ontario. Mr. Macpherson was at the
head of another company, and he was opposed to any preference being given to Sir Hugh. '
So Sir John Macdonald states in the published telegram, and he makes the stipulation that
nothing was to be known till after the elections, so that he might have Sir Hugh's assistance.
from below, and Mr. Macpherson's assistance from above. The influence which Sir Hugh.
Sir Hugh Allan comes to the Rescue.
had been prepared to exercise till that moment to defeat Sir George Cartier and his friends,
he turned in their favor, on receipt of the assurances for which he bartered that influence.
A few days after the assurances were given, upon the 8th of August, he appeared at a public-
meeting in the city of Montreal, beside Sir George, and formaliy stated to his friends that
he had received satisfactory pledges, and intimated his desire accordingly that they would
support Sir George and his party. At the same time that Sir Hugh Allan's influence was
thus acquired, arrangements were made for his advancing money, not merely for Sir George.
Cartier's election, but for other elections generally. The elections in the Montreal district
—in the city of Montreal and surrounding constituencies—were managed by a central com-
mittee, which had its head-quarters in that city. Arrangements were made for the supply
of funds to this Committee on Sir George's requisition, to be dealt out amongst the
constituencies. All these arrangements were contemporaneous with the giving of the satis-
factory assurance to Sir Hugh Allan with regard to the Pacific Railway contract. These
things are incontrovertible. There is no question of their truth. But it is stated in defenee
“Quite Accidental : *
of Sir Hugh Allan and the Government that the several transactions had nothing to do with
one another ; they were mere coincidences. The fact that Sir Hugh Allan having insisted
upon a particular thing being given to him, upon a certain-memorable day obtained it, and
the further facts that on that day he turned round and extended his influence in favor of
Ministers and their friends, and upon the same day arranged for the supply of money for
the same purpose, you are to regard as entirely distinct—mere coincidences, events which,
though occurring at precisely the same time, had nothing whatever to do with one another.
It was a pure accident that they happened together ; that is the argument. Now, all those
of you who have ever been suitors, or witnesses, or jurors, or spectators in a court of justice,
must have heard and seen, time and again, similar absurd but utterly futile efforts to per-
suade the court that two contemporaneous transactions between the same parties were yet
wholly independent of each other. The answer has always been, in the words of the
proverb, “I can put two and two together;” and if such a ſlimsy argument were presented
in a court it would be laughed out of the place. It is perfectly ridiculous and unworthy of
eyery intelligent and honest man to argue that these facts had no conncetion with one
The Connection between Allan and the Government utterly Indefensible.
another. I say it was utterly impossible for the Government to have honestly, even for
legitimate election purposes, taken one shilling from Sir Hugh Allan, or from John Abbott,
in the relations which they mutually occupied to them. Sir Hugh was then at any rate a
competitor for this great contract. If he had not already obtained it, he was at any rate
Seeking it, and had received certain assurances, satisfactory to himself, as he tells us in his
affidavit. Ständing in that relation to him, was it possible that honest men could have
received from him or from his solicitor and agent contributions even for honest election
purposes Could they be free in dealing with him afterwards Yet these men had sup-
plied Sir John A. Macdonald with money to the amount of about $100,000, and the Central
Committee to an amount approximating to $150,000; and all this money was supplied dur-
ing the crisis of the election, not, as the amounts plainly showed, for honest purposes, but
for the purpose of bribing the electors of this country. Now, sir, let me remind you of
Some of the declarations of Sir John Macdonald. You will remember that while this
j
\
10 MR. BLAKE's
business was going on, while these transactions were being accomplished at Montreal, Sir
John A. Macdonald was making an election tour through Ontario, and after they had been
'Sir John’s Election Speeches.
concluded, he continued that triumphal tour ; he made his impassioned speeches; more
than once he called his God to witness that his hands were clean. He poured filth upon
his adversaries. Let me read you from the Mail's reports what he said. At Clinton, on the
17th of August, he said:
“After the long service he (Sir John A. Macdonald) had given to the public he could now
come forward and challenge friend or foe to state on the hustings before the people, of in
private discussion, that he had ever been guilty of an unclean and disreputable act. In the
United States they had seen one Judge dismissed and dying broken-hearted, and another
brought to his death-bed, because improper conduct had been proved against them. There,
too, they saw corruption rife in all political parties, public men, depraved officials pur-
chased, whole communities sold like sheep in the shambles, and the public outraged by
such indecent venality. But nothing of the kind was seen in Canada, and why "–Can
you conjecture why, my friends ! Let me read on :-‘‘Because for seventeen years he had
been the chief member of the Government, and during all that time had looked steadily to
the mother country for an example. There might be political contests in England, but
whoever led the Government there, whether Mr. Gladstone or Mr. Disraeli, both of whom
were his personal friends, they might be certain it would be composed of honest and upright
men who would earnestly devote the intellect and capacity God had given them to the best
interests of the country. It was his pride and boast that he had endeavoured to pursue the
same course in Canada. He might, without dishonesty or dishonor, have used occasionally
the means of information possessed by every Minister of the Crown in order to amass a
colossal fortune ; but from the beginning of his political career he had laid down this rule,
and not only had he insisted upon it himself, but he had insisted on the observance of it by
his colleagues, that no Minister of the Crown should make one farthing beyond the salary
which he derived from his office. If ever there had been a suspicion, or a doubt, or a
charge to the contrary—and sometimes there had been charges—he had investigated the
matter to the bottom, and sometimes they might have seen that Ministers had disappeared
from his Government.”
A most curious statement this The charges which had been made against
members of his Government were true then, and the gentleman told the public that
he had found, if not himself, at least some of his colleagues, guilty of acts of corruption
charged against them. But he, forsooth, was a moral and high-toned gentleman, and dis-
missed them from his counsels as unworthy of his distinguished company At St. Mary's,
two days afterwards, on the 19th August, where Mr. Kidd was the Conservative candidate,
he said:—“He appealed to Mr. Kidd to say whether he had received or been promised any
“money from the Government to carry on the contest in South Perth £" Mr. Kidd replied,
* Not a farthing.” Sir John Macdonald said “the same answer would be given by every
“candidate in Ontario if he were appealed to.” Now, Sir, here is a statement made by
himself—that every Government candidate would say, if appealed to, that not a farthing
had been supplied to them by the Government to aid them in their elections ! At Sarnia,
on the 21st of the same month, his speech is thus reported.
“He went on to charge the Government of Ontario with using its powers corruptly,
by granting silver lands in return for assistance at these elections. This would
be proved before a Committee of the House during the next session of Parliament.” On the
30th of August, four days after the famous 26th, he said:—“He had come to Lindsay for
the purpose of doing what he could in his humble way for his personal and political friend
Mr. Dormer. * * * He referred to the attempts that had been made to corrupt the con-
stituencies during these elections. He charged the Opposition with bribery on an extensive
scale. * * * He did not doubt that large sums had been raised as a corruption fund
among persons interested in timber licenses under the Ontario Government. He said that
already a case had been made out against them which would demand legislative action of the
most stringent kind. To show the capacity of the Opposition for corrupt work of that kind,
he referred to the outrages that had been committed in Proton and elsewhere, and said that
these matters would undoubtedly come before Parliament at its next session.”
This was on the 30th of August, while his hands were reeking with pollution 1 This was
while he was putting those unclean hands into the money-bags of Sir Hugh Allan and Mr.
SPEECH AT BOWMANV [LLE. | i
Abbott, and bribing the electors of Canada with money obtained by his cession of the rights
of those whom he was thus corrupting and demoralizing. I need hardly say to you that four
days before that last speech he had sent the now famous telegram, “Must have another
ten thousand. Will be the last time of calling. Do not fail me;” showing that
there had been “ten thousands” sent before, and that the money was being received and spent
at the very time he was making these assertions of his innocence, and accusing others of guilt
which was his alone. Sir, I need not remind you that he did not repeat those charges
against the Government of Ontario during the session. His statements that there would be
a Committee of Investigation, when these facts would all be brought before the House and
the country, have not been made good. The session began and ended, but he never dared
to moot the subject in the House. He knew he had no ground or pretence for these charges,
which were utterly false, but he sought by charging others with what he had been guilty of
himself to divert public attention from his own culpable proceedings. He acted like the
robber who, while he is running away with the spoil, cries “Stop thief’ very loudly all the
time. Now, these are the circumstances, as they appear before you, undisputed and
indisputable, occurring while the elections were proceeding. While he was at this
The Ring at Work in Lower Canada.
work in Ontario, the Central Committee and Sir George Cartier were at like work
in Quebec, and as I have told you, a still larger sum was disbursed down there
than was disbursed up here. Well, Sir, it was said at one time that the money
had to do with the Northern Colonization Road. That is of no consequence. Of
course it is equally improper to bribe with money obtained from one quarter as with that
obtained from another, but at any rate the Northern Colonization Road was identified with
the Pacific Road. They were part of the same scheme. It was said, again, that the advance
had to do with Sir Hugh Allan's political feelings—that he was an ardent Conservative and
Subscribed these sums in the interest of the cause. His letters have told how much he
thinks of politics. There he describes the two political parties as factions, and informs his
sorrespondents that the Lower Canada members, whom Sir George Cartier influenced, held
the balance of power and could control this country. He does not tell you in the freedom
of private correspondence of political aspirations of one kind or another; on the contrary,
he shows that he intended to stand in the path of the Government, determined to do his
best to defeat them, unless he obtained the Pacific contract, willing to support them if he
should get that contract. He an ardent politician I am told he never subscribed to an
election in his life before. He is conservative of one thing—I mean his money. But it
was not because he had any interest in politics for their own sake, one way or another, that
he advanced these moneys. It was a pure—or rather an impure—business transaction, and
his letters show that the whole amount he expended, including the $40,000 which he
obtained from his American confréres, nigh $400,000 in all, was an expenditure made in
order to obtain, and charged upon, this contract, believed by his American associates to
have been so expended, and claimed by him to be payable to him after the contract was
secured ; and yet men will dare to tell an intelligent people that these are political subscrip-
tions by v public man, without any reference to contracts, or anything but political pur-
*. Baseness of the Whole Transaction.
poses. Sir, the culprits may come forward, and they may pledge their oaths to their
innocence ; they may call their God to witness again, as they have called their God to
witness before—I know no difference in the solemnity of the adjuration, whether it be made
upon the hustings, or in the Witness box—but in the face or all these letters and telegrams.
and in the face of these admissions, it is utterly impossible to believe any such statement,
It is utterly impossible to find any nie uns of escape from the conviction that “those hands
re unclean, indeed. It is utterly impass ble to find means to escape from the conviction
w” 2 /
12 MR. BLAKE's
that the enormous powers entrusted to them in reference to this contract were used for the
purpose of procuring influence and cash from the contractor to whom they agreed to give the
Its Effect on the Elections,
contract. What, sir, was the result of this profuse expenditure? I have said that the
Government majority in Ontario and Quebec had been forty-seven, and even after this
expenditure, that majority was turned into a minority of nine in these two
Provinces. The disgraceful conduct of Ministers in reference to the seats for
South Renfrew and West Peterboro’ took two of those votes away, making four
on a division. There was therefore, on the whole, a change in the two Provinces
of old Canada from a majority of forty-seven for the Government to a majority of five
against it. Now, with such overwhelming evidences of the change in public opinion, what
would have been the result if $350,000 of the Pacific money had not been put into the
scales? I venture to say that I am speaking far within bounds when I say that twenty
constituencies in Ontario and Quebec have been purchased by that expenditure, and that
instead of the Opposition being in a majority cf five in both Provinces, they would, if that
money had not been used, have been in a majority of 45. The situation of the Govern-
ment was desperate, they had taken these desperate means to remedy it, and yet when Par-
liament met, their power depended upon the men from the Maritime Provinces, the bulk
of whom had belonged to the old Liberal parties in those Provinces, and were by no means
strenuous supporters of the Government. They were able to obtain a majority on the first
vote; and having done so they obtained temporarily the control of the House, but by no
certain tenure. There was no moment at which their position was easy during the session.
The people of the outlying provinces did not feel satisfied with the course they were taking
in supporting a Government which had only a limited share of their confidence, and which
had lost its hold on Ontario and Quebec, while what strength it had was due to the corrupt
The Ring Money “merely” used in Corrupting the Electors.
means to which I have referred. Some of the friends of the Government urge that they
are less blameworthy than if they had pocketed this money themselves; and seem to wish
a verdict of not guilty on that ground. They were not charged with having pocketed the
money; but I declare to you that I conceive that would be a crime less grave than the one
with which they were charged. It would certainly have been a more sordid, a meaner
crime—a crime which would expose the perpetrators to greater contempt, but by no means
to greater indignation. In the case supposed it is the disgrace of the Minister alone ;
whilst in the actual case it is the disgrace of the whole country. In the case supposed you
can easily punish the criminal Minister; but in the actual case how are you to vindicate
public justice $350,000 have been scattered broadcast throughout the country in cor-
rupting thousands of electors. Sad experience has shown that those who have been once
bought are more likely to make merchandise of their votes thereafter. Thus not one, but
thousands of crimes have been committed, and the moral sense of the community has been
sensibly lowered. You may indeed punish the Minister, but how shall you punish these
unworthy voters—how shallyou restore the purity and independence which have been bartered
The Entire Political Fabric Undermined. *
away? Again, remember that by what has been done, a majority has been purchased. The
free voice of the people has been overborne, and these men rule, not because the free voice
of the people has so decided, but in spite of the utterances of that voice. I deny that my
rights or your rights are to be subject to the control of those who sell their votes. That is
not the theory of popular Government, and in practice would be found intolerable tyranny.
Such a House should be purged at an early day, and if it were found continuously that the
unbiassed vote of the country were crushed by the purchased vote of some unworthy men,
the time would have arrived for such a change in the system of Government as would ren-
der it tolerable by a free people; and I have no doubt that in that evil day you would be
found ready for the exertions and sacrifices to which you might be called, as your ancestors
SPEECH AT BOWMAN WILLE. 13
were ready when the day came for the vindication of liberty against tyranny. But it would
be in truth an evil day ; and it is because I am so fully sensible of its horrors that I am
inclined to describe as the most heinous of public crimes, such a betrayal of your liberties
as would result in your being forced to rise in their defence. Shortly before the session
began, the Government made the great Charter Contract. I shall not enter into its details
to-day. You are familiar, I suppose, with its provisions, which have been the subject of
discussion in the press. They have not yet been the subject of an exhaustive discussion in
Parliament. We saw before the session was far advanced that there was a prior question.
Before we came to discuss the Charter we had to discuss the charterers ; we had to discuss
the parties, and the considerations moving them, before we came to the terms of the docu-
Bogus Character of the Ring Charterers.
ment itself. A word or two I may say with reference to the composition of the Company.
I have seen it stated that while Sir Hugh Allan is only President of the Company, the other
corporators are respectable gentlemen, with the great majority of whom he has but little
connection. I am willing to admit that some of those gentlemen are very respectable,
others are less so. The subscription shows that they have as a rule taken up $750,000 each,
and paid down $75,000 each, and we well know that there are very few of these gentlemen
who could pay the 10 per cent. Not a single man, except Sir Hugh Allan, could pay the
$750,000. It has been seriously pretended that these subscriptions and payments were made
boma fide, but respecting some of them, at any rate, there can be but little doubt. The
payments of some of these gentlemen were, I believe, advanced for them; others subscribed
upon an understanding that they should not be called on to assume any continued respon-
sibility ; it is said that -one of the corporators was not aware of his situation till after
the formation of the company; and on the whole it is impossible to describe what has
been done as a boma fide, subscription and security for $10,000,000. The cash,
it seems, has been arranged for, so that it is to remain undrawn at the various
banks at 5 per cent., under the deposit receipts of the banks. These have been accepted by
the Government upon the same terms, so that unless Parliament should otherwise order, the
money is not to be drawn out of the banks in which it is said to have been deposited. You
understand what that means. It means that the so-called payments in some
instances, at any rate, made through the banks, were nominal payments representing
merely transactions of accommodation, and not cash at all. Now, sir, it is said that this
Company is not to stand or fall by Sir Hugh Allan ; but I say that the memorandum of Sir
John A. Macdonald upon the contract shows that Sir Hugh is the great controlling spirit of
the concern. Sir John, throughout, speaks of the parties as “Sir Hugh Allan and his
associates.” He is the head of this Company, and if no honest man is to be found—and
for the honor of my country I hope no man will be found—to vindicate Sir Hugh Allan,
whatever may be the result to the Government of the great cause now so long pending, it
is utterly impossible that we can entrust to a man, the author of a correspondence the most
scandalous and profligate of modern times, the asserter of his own disgrace, that influence
and position which is to be looked for and must be the property of him who is to be the
President of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
The honorable gentleman then intimated that he had arrived at that stage of his nar-
rative at which he proposed to close his more detailed remarks, and that he would endea-
vor, in a very few words, to give a cursory account of the subsequent tiansactions in this
connection. Neither their patience nor his strength would permit him to deal with the
whole subject just now as he desired, or as its importance deserved. He then reviewed the
subsequent events, referring, amongst other matters, to the constitution of the Royal Com-
mission, and pointed out that it was not to be wondered at that the head of the judiciary
of Ontario should have (as it was publicly stated he had done) repelled the approaches made
to him on the subject of his becoming a Commissioner, and this on the ground that the
proceeding was unconstitutional.
14 * MR. BLAKE's
j W Nuwºrk TWO,
• THE LONDON SPEECH.
**s-s-s-s-s-s-s
On the evening of Thursday, 28th August, 1873, Mr. Blake addressed a public meeting
as follows:— *
MR. BLAKE said:—Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen—Deeply conscious, as I am,
of my incapacity properly to handle the great question to which you, sir, have alluded, I
did not feel free to decline the invitation extended to me by my political friends in this
city, considering that it was my duty at this great crisis to contribute my quota, however
small, to the defence of the commonweal. The subject is so large, and involves so many con-
siderations of an historical as well as of an argumentative character, that I should not attempt
even the most cursory summary within the limits of one address. On a recent occcasion I
took the opportunity of discussing some of the earlier events bearing on the situation of to-
day. Trusting to your acquaintance with public affairs, I shall not now review those events
in detail. (The speaker proceeded to summarize the account given by him in his speech at
Bowmanville, and continued as follows):—Permit me, then, to commence my detailed
The Parliamentary Session of 1873.
remarks by adverting to some of the incidents of the late session. In accordance with a
promise contained in the speech from the Throne a law for the trial of elections was brought
forward, and then was seen the hollowness of the pretences on which, only a few months
before, when a similar law had been proposed, it was kicked out of Parliament by the very
men who now introduced it. All the difficulties which they had announced anterior to the
elections had vanished when the elections were over. The steed had been stolen, and the
stable door was about to be locked. But not just yet ; there was yet a steed to steal. Some
elections were expected shortly. Some vacancies there were already in the Cabinet, and
further changes were known to be imminent. Although it was acknowledged now, so
The Anti-Corruption Bill, Again.
late, that this was a good law, which it was in the interest of the country to pass; yet even
at this late moment the Government resolved to postpone its operation until the month of
November next, leaving the intermediate elections to be held under the provisions of the old
and abandoned law. This action on the part of the Government was utterly indefensible,
but it was necessary for the completion of Ministerial arrangements. South Ontario must
retain the bad pre-eminence it has of late years acquired amongst the constituencies of this
country. Mr. Gibbs must become a Minister, and Mr. Gibbs must not be deprived of the
only means by which he ever had represented or ever could represent that unhappy Riding;
and so for a while longer the powers of darkness were to prevail. The Minister who has so
long ruled this country with a cynical disregard of consistency and principle, perhaps the
most remarkable feature in a remarkable career, was now to give one more example of this
characteristic. That good and great man, the echoes of whose speeches against the bill were
still lingering around the hall, was now to propose its adoption; and hardened though he
was, he felt the embarrassment of the situatián. He did not attempt to defend this change
of policy. The measure was introduced in silence; the second reading was moved in silence;
and it was in Committee of the Whole, where the details alone are considered, that we
obtained the first opportunity for discussion. A single evening's debate proved so unsatis-
factory to the Ministel that he postponed the resumption of the subject until the
very last days of the session, when it was impossible to resist the action of the
Government. The bill is certainly an immense improvement on the existing Jaw,
but it is by no means as satisfactory as it would have been, had the free
SPEECH AT LONDON. 15
will of the House been allowed to operate upon it. It requires, and I hope will shortly
receive, serious amendment. Now, Sir, while the strength of public opinion, as evinced
Rumors of the Great Scandal.
during the elections, was forcing the election law upon Ministers, rumours which had been
current for a considerable period of an enormous job in connection with the Pacific Railway
gradually assumed consistency and shape. Many who were aware of suspicious transactions
in times past, and believed that there had been corruption in connection with the distribu-
tion of public moneys and public contracts, were yet of opinion that even if there had been
some wrong doing as to the Pacific, it would be as in former years, impossible to ascertain
the truth. We know that, as a rule, these transactions are conducted in all the obscurity,
surrounded by all the barriers, and cloaked with all the devices which can be planned by
the ingenuity of man, and that it is always difficult, and frequently impossible, to establish
them ; nor do I wonder that even those who most suspected Ministers of such improprieties,
should have been very doubtful that they could be proved. But the transactions were so
large, the interests so numerous, the conspirators so audacious, that the plans for conceal-
ment were baffled, and shortly after the commencement of the session, circumstances became
Mr. Huntington’s Charges,
known to Mr. Huntington which warranted him in making, and since they warranted,
bound him in the discharge of his public duty, to make the statement which has created
so much discussion. I need not repeat the words; they are graven on the hearts of the
people of Canada ; you remember that he alleged his ability to prove certain high
crimes and misdemeanors against Ministers and members of the House, and moved for a
Select Committee to enquire into the matter. It was a mighty issue. Its determination
was to affect the character of Canada and her institutions for long years to come ; for if it
be true that such guilt has invaded the land, and yet public sentiment shall permit the
culprits, adding crime to crime, to violate the Constitution in their flight from justice, and so
to escape the fit reward of their accumulated guilt, we shall have degraded ourselves in the
eyes of the world, and shall have pronounced ourselves unequal to the position of a self-
The Motion for Inquiry Summarily Voted Down.
governing people ! How was the motion met It was met by the Government with no
word of denial, with no word of explanation, with no word of reply. Assuming an attitude
of injured innocence and offended dignity, they called upon their followers to vote it down,
and their followers were equal to the occasion. The step was a bold one, but in their des-
sperate situation not unwise. Could they have maintained their ground it would have been
well taken ; but they could not maintain it. The reaction was almost instantaneous, and
Public Opinion Condemns the Refusal of Inđuiry.
within six hours it became obvious to those who had the opportunity of observing the turn
of events and the drift of public opinion, as evinced within the walls of Parliament, that a
retreat must take place, and an enquiry be conceded. The change was announced next day,
and shortly afterwards the Minister himself moved the reference of Mr. Huntington's state-
Ministers Impeached.
ments to a Select Committee. By that motion, to which the House unanimously assented,
the Minister acknowledged, first that Mr. Huntington had preferred those charges in a pro-
per manner and upon a proper statement, and secondly, that he had proposed the proper
mode of investigation—that same tribunal which the Minister himself asked the House to
adopt for the purpose. During the discussion, the Minister announced that the motion was
in substance an impeachment. And he was quite right. It was not, of course, technically
an impeachment, because in that Constitution for which he is chiefly responsible, with
wonderful préscience, he was careful to make no provision for the establishment of a Court of
Impeachment ; but it was, as he said, substantially an impeachment, and that for a high
16 > * R. B.A.RE's
political offence, such as has always been disposed of exclusively by Parliament. In his
motion, he somewhat limited the enquiry proposed by Mr. Huntington ; and he added a
clause giving the Committee power to sit if need.be (mark the words, “if need be ") after
the prorogation of Parliament—a thing impossible according to ordinary Parliamentary doc-
trine, which lays down that the House cannot give to any of its Committees a life longer
than its own ; but I suppose, 'liustified to himself by the Minister on the ground before
alluded to, that this was in the 2nature of an impeachment, since it is well settled that not
even dissolution, much less prorogation, abates an impeachment. That proposal was re-
markable in another particular, for it, indicates that then, at any rate, the Minister did not
believe, or, if he did, chose to conceal his belief that the work of the Committee would
necessarily be unfinished in May or June, the anticipated period of prorogation. The pro-
posal was simply that “if need be,” the Committee should sit after prorogation. There-
fore, the work would possibly be finished, and would, of course, be commenced before pro-
rogation. It is obvious enough that he did not then intend the House to understand
that it was out of the question for the Committee to examine a single witness before pro-
rogation, The motion was carried, and the Committee was forthwith struck according to
the usual plan, by which each member gives a vote for one person as member of the Com-
mittee ; and thus, of course, the Government secured a majority, having three votes to two
The Oaths Bill.
from the other side. Not long after the Committee had been organized, it recommended,
in accordance with suggestions thrown out by both sides, the passage of what is known as
the Oaths Bill. The Minister professed doubts as to the power of the Canadian Parliament
to pass it ; but upon that question he, at any rate, was committed. As leader of the House
he had shortly before carried through Parliament, and placed on the statute book, an Act
conferring upon the Senate, the other branch of the Legislature—that of which you, sir,
are a distinguished ornament, the power of administering oaths at its bar, That mea-
sure is objectionable on precisely the same reasoning as that which has effected the dis-
allowance of the Oaths Bill, and is defensible only on the same grounds on which the Oaths
Bill may be defended. If one is contrary to the Constitution so also is the other. Yet, for
that Bill, the Minister himself is specially responsible. His opinion then must have been
that Parliament had the power to pass such an Act, or he was grossly derelict in his duty
when he promoted its passage. Again, he was in other ways committed. In two of the
Local Legislatures, those of Ontario and Quebec, measures were passed by which those
Legislatures assumed to arrogate to themselves the powers, privileges, and immunities of the
House of Commons of England, as they stood at the 1st of July, 1867. The Minister here
and the law officers of the Crown in England all reported against these measures as being
beyond the competence of the Local Legislatures. From that conclusion, the accuracy of
which I never doubted, and which I had myself announced in the Legislature of Ontario, it
plainly followed that the Local Legislatures were unable to take to themselves the powers,
privileges, and immunities of the Canadian House of Commons, which were the same as those
of the English House on 1st July, 1867. In conformity with that opinion, these acts were,
under the advice of the first Minister, disallowed and struck off the statute books of the
Provinces. The powers of the Local Legislatures in this particular having been thus deter-
mined to be more limited than those of the House of Commons of Canada, these same Legis-
latures nevertheless each thereafter passed an Act giving power to their committees to ex-
amine witnesses under oath. It is the duty of the Minister, as he has himself declared, to
consider all acts of the Local Legislatures and to advise disallowance of such as are beyond
their competence. He considered those acts, but did not advise their disallowance. He
advised that they should be left to their operation, and they were so left. Upon this occas-
ion, therefore, it is perfectly clear that the Minister must have been of opinion that the
J.ocal Legislatures, with fewer powers and privileges than the Parliament of Canada, had,
SPEECH AT LONDON. , is I 7
motwithstanding, the power to pass this very Oaths Bill, in respect to which he now pro-
fesses to doubt the power of the Parliament of Canada itself. But whatever his doubts were,
he overcame them. As leader of the Government it was his constitutional duty to see that
no improper legislation passed the House, and as law adviser of the Crown, it was his special
duty to advise the Governor with reference to each Act submitted for assent asto whether assent
should be given ornot. This measure he permitted to pass, and he recommended the assent, and
so it became law ; but not without delays inits progress, through your branch of the Legislature
and subsequently. These delays had excited impatience both within and without the walls of
The Committee Ready for Work.
Parliament; and before the passage of the Bill, the Committee had summoned a large number of
Mr. Huntington's witnesses, and had procured their attendance, I having announced that unless
the Bill was assented to at once I would propose to the Committee to proceed forthwith under
the existing law. On the day on which I was to make this motion we were informed that
the Bill would be assented to on the Monday following, and we adjourned to the Tuesday,
ordering the witnesses to be then once more in attendance for the commencement of the
business, already too long deferred. The assent was given, and on the appointed day we
met, the House and the public expecting that, at length, after so many preliminary
Systematic Procrastination.
difficulties, we were to be allowed to begin. During all this time no hint had been dropped
of further obstacles—on the contrary the speeches of the Minister had all been in the opposite
sense ; but the evil day had come at last, and he was forced to develope those plans for still
further delay which either originally or in the meantime had suggested themselves to his
The Absence of Witnesses Dodge.
fertile brain. He appeared before the Committee and announced the absence of three
individuals—Sir George Cartier, Sir Hugh Allan, and Mr. Abbott—and that there was no
expectation of their return until June ; facts of which we had all been aware ever since the
date of the original motion. He startled us by the statement that in their absence the
Government felt it impossible that the Committee should proceed, and he requested an
adjournment until the 2nd July, in order that Allan and Abbott, who he said were the only
witnesses of the Government, might be present. He also threw out a proposal that the
The Secrecy Dodge.
Committee should be secret. A member of the Committee following almost immediately
made a speech developing a striking coincidence with the views that had just been enunciated.
He produced from his pocket and proposed certain resolutions carrying out these views.
Against these resolutions Mr. Dorion and I voted, but they were carried over an amendment,
proposed by Mr. Dorion, that Sir Francis Hincks, a witness summoned and then in attendance,
should be called and examined. Well, sir, the resolutions were reported to the House, whose
sanction was asked to them. A very strong feeling was developed immediately against the
proposal that the Committee should be secret, a proposal which I do not hesitate to
say was of a most scandalous character. The members of the administration and
their friends have not unfrequently descanted, when it served their turn, on the purely
judicial character of the investigation, and who, living in a free country, is ignorant
of the fact that one of the greatest securities for the continuation of that freedom is the
publicity of judicial proceedings? But, sir, that proposal shocked the sense of the House,
Inquiry Postponed by a Party Vote.
and it was withdrawn. The proposal for adjournment was debated on our side at any rate,
the other side declining discussion, and relying on that power of numbers which enabled
them, by a very considerable majority, to carry it. I never doubted that many gentlemen
who voted for the adjournment did so conscientiously; I agreed that there were two
~,
18 MR. BLAKF's
sides to that question, although my own view was strongly adverse to the proposal :
that the work should not commence till the 2nd of July. I was always of opinion
that any witness wanted by the Government should be called, and that any adjournment
necessary for that purpose should be granted, but I was not of opinion that there existed
at that time, and under those circumstances, a case for postponing the commencement of
the enquiry to the 2nd of July. The Minister had stated that the work would last from
The Real Motives of Postponement.
four to six weeks, and it was therefore plain that a very great mass of evidence would have
to be taken. It was also plain that extreme inconvenience was likely to occur, if the House
were not to sit while the Committee was sitting. This mistake, it was, from which all the
other evils flowed; but for this mistake we should not have been here to-night, deploring
baffled justice and violated right. The presence of the House was required, first, in order
that the Committee might be able to apply to it for instruction and guidance, in case of any
difficulty in the prosecution of the enquiry, and for the interposition of its authority to
compel the attendance and the answering of witnesses; and secondly, in order to give the
members of the House, who were to be the ultimate judges of the case, the opportunity of .
hearing and seeing for themselves the taking of the evidence. I should like to know whether
any of you who have ever been suitors in a court would prefer that the evidence should be
taken down in writing, in the absence of the judge or jury who were to decide upon a subse-
quent perusal of the evidence, or whether you would not prefer that the witnesses should be
examined in the presence of the judge or jury. Are you not aware that the demeanour of
the witness, his hesitation in answering, the difficulty in extracting replies, or, on the other
hand, a suspicious fluency, that a hundred circumstances only perceptible to the man within
sight and hearing of the witness—are most material, nay vital, to juries in coming to a con-
clusion as to the honesty or the accuracy of the witness, and the weight to be given to his
evidence. Therefore I felt that it was right that, if possible, every member of Parliament
should be in court while the examination of witnesses was going on. There were several
other reasons, but I will not now detain you by detailing them ; suffice it to say that the
proposals of the Government were adopted, and as a necessary consequence, in order to keep
the Committee alive, it was arranged that the House should adjourn instead of being pro-,
rogued ; but there was another reason, unsuspected by us, why it was important in the in-
terest of the Government that the House should not he prorogued, but adjourned during the
The Allan--McMullen Corruption Papers.
enquiry. It has since transpirei that the infamous Allan letters were in existence, in the
hands of Mr. Starnes, on terms which were devised to keep them secret so long as the ses-
sion should last, but to set them free after a prorogation; and who can doubt that the hope
of the guilty men was that by arranging for the prosecution of the enquiry before proroga-
tion, these documents might be kept concealed, and so the evidences of their guilt might be
suppressed ? But truth was to prevail! Mr. Huntington became aware of the existence
and custody of these papers, and justly dreading their destruction, he took steps for securing
The Royal Commission Dodge.
them, to which I shall presently refer. During the various discussions which took place
upon the enquiry, the First Minister had more than once indicated his preference of a Royal
Commission to a Parliamentary Committee : but his suggestions were received with the
most marked disapprobation in a House, which in nothing else had dared to disapprove of
anything he said. No voice in Parliament, save his own, was ever raised in support of this
proposal; and the gentleman who had taken the most active part amongst all his supporters
during the whole session in sustaining his every view—the gentleman who argued for him
the West Peterboro' case, who argued for him the Muskoka case—the gentleman who had
never besitated to come to the front on doubtful and desperate issues in other instances—I
$
\
SPEECH AT TON DON. 19
mean the member for Cardwell—even he (though not till his leader had yielded) enunciated
in the strongest way his disapproval of the plan of a Commission, adding that he would have
declined to serve on a Royal Commission while the proper tribunal, a Committee, was
available. The Minister, I say, yielded to this unanimous expression of opinion, and pro-
fessed to abandon his idea of a Commission. Thus the House made choice in a most striking
manner of a Committee in preference to a Commission, and to that view every single member
was an assenting party. One alleged precedent alone did Sir John Macdonald cite in support
of his proposal, namely, the Ceylon case. Mark, first of all, that this is no precedent for the
issue of a Royal Commission without an address of theiríouse, for the Commission issued in
the Ceylon case was issued upon address. But I shall show you in a very few words that
this precedent is wholly inapplicable. There had been an insurrection in Ceylon, in the
suppression of which it was alleged that Lord Torrington and the local authorities had acted
with great violence and brutality; and a select Committee was ordered to investigate these
charges. The evidence was to be obtained principally from witnesses living in Ceylon, and
owing to this difficulty the Committee did not get very far, and towards the close of the
session recommended that a Royal Commission should issue to enquire on the spot into the
- circumstances connected with the suppression of the rebellion. That recommendation
was declined by the House. Thereupon the Committee reported, recommending that it
should be reappointed next session, and that means should be taken in the meantime for
summoning witnesses from Ceylon. The Committee was re-appointed next session, and in
the prosecution of the enquiry it appeared that a proclamation had been issued, purporting
to be signed by Captain Watson, an officer serving in Ceylon, to the effect that any persons
having in their possession or knowing the whereabouts of certain property, who did not
deliver up or disclose the whereabouts of the property, should be killed, and their
effects confiscated. Captain Watson, who happened to be in England, denied having
signed this brutal proclamation. Certain evidence to the contrary having been
tendered to the Committee, they decided not to enter into a question affecting
the honour of an officer of Her Majesty's Army. Subsequently an address to the
Crown was moved and agreed to without debate, for the issue of a Royal Commission, to
enquire on the spot into the circumstances connected with the papers presented to the Com-
mittee under Captain Watson's signature. The Committee itself proceeded with the
investigation of the charges referred to it, in which the Imperial Government, was only
indirectly concerned, through the suggestion that they had improperly approved of Lord
Torrington's proceedings; but there was no hint of the Government being in anywise responsi.
ble in connection with the Watson proclamation. The Committee reported the result of its
labors, and once more suggested a Royal Commission to the House for certain purposes,
but no such Commission was ordered. In the third session, the House took up the question
on the evidence reported by the Committee, and finally disposed of the charge against the
Government. This is the history of the Ceylon case, and you will see that so far from its
being a precedent for the enquiry by a Royal Commission into charges of high crimes and
misdemeanors preferred against Ministers and members of the House, it furnishes precedents
against that course, both by what was done and by what was declined. But the Ceylon
ease is a precedent upon another point upon which the Minister did not cite it. At
the end of the session, during the absence of Mr. Dorion and myself, objection was taken for
the first time to our presence as members of the Committee, upon the ground that our
position in the House was such that we should have declined to serve—the Minister arguing that
Mr. Disraeli would have scorned to serve on such a committee against Mr. Gladstone—and
on the further ground that the speeches we had made in the House showed that the Govern-
ment could not expect to get fair play from us. These are two separate points. Upon the
first I will cite the Ceylon case. Mr. Disraeli, who was leading the Opposition, was an
active member of that Committee, and in the House he moved motions, and made strong
speeches on the subject. Now, here is a precedent against the Minister, furnished in the
very case he cited, by the very person whom he cited. But of course the parallel would
not have held. Neither my friend nor myself occupied the position attributed to us and
which was occupied by Mr. Disraeli. Neither of us was leader of the Opposition in Parlia-
ment. That position was filled by my friend and colleague Mr. Mackenzie. You know,
too, that the circumstances under which Mr. Dorion was elected were such as rendered him
20 MR. BLAKE S
least of all liable to any such charge. He had announced his retirement from public life
and his determination not to seek re-election. He left for England on private business,
declining to say that he would sit if elected; on the contrary, declaring that he must, in that
event, resign, and refusing to comply with the request of his friends to leave behind him a
declaration of qualification. During his absence his friends were determined that he should
be re-elected, and they returned him to Parliament. On his arrival here he was over-borne
by the pressure of his friends, and took the seat so honourably provided for him. Was Mr.
Dorion, having so come into Parliament, and standing, as I believe he did, and does, higher
than any other man in the esteem and affection of the House, incapacitated by his position
from giving a full and fair consideration to the matters coming before the Committee ? Was
he, of all men, to be bribed to injustice by the expectation of office As to myself, you are
perfectly aware that prior to the general election I announced to my friends that it was impos-
sible for me, whatever might be the result of the election, to serve my country otherwise
than in the ranks. During my absence in England, Sir John Macdonald and his friends
made large use of the statement. They accepted it as true, and they drew from it the false
and ungenerous inference that there was some split or difficulty between my friends and
myself. That served their turn just then, but a little later, at the close of the session,
though I had in the meantime unequivocally repeated my announcemement, it suited the
purpose of the Minister to allege that I too, as an aspirant for office, was incompetent to sit
on the Committee. Sir, I had sat on Committees in which Ministers were deeply concerned
before. I was the Chairman of Sir G. Cartier's Election Committee, and an active member
of the Committee on the Allan MacNab purchase, and I appeal with confidence to the part
I took in those investigations as proof of my desire to act fairly towards Ministers. As to
the other charge, that my speeches during the session on this matter showed that the
Goverment could not expect fair play from me, I shall not answer it save by a reference to
the records; and I challenge Sir John Macdonald, his friends, followers, and satellites to
point to a speech, a sentence, a word of mine, while a member of that Committee, which
justifies the statement. But the truth is that at this time the Government saw that the
matter was becoming very serious, and they were endeavoring to break the blow by assailing
the adversary and finding cause of complaint against the Committee. Towards the close of
The Sealed Packet,
the session Mr. Huntington found that certain, documentary evidence was in danger, and
looking to the aspersions that had been cast upon him, and to the complaints which had
been made of his former conduct, he proposed to prove to the House that he had cause for
the motion he was about to make to instruct the Committee to impound these documents.
He did not offer oral evidence, but he proposed to read the letters of Sir Hugh
Allan, the very man whom the Government had described as their chief wit-
1162SS. The proposed explanation was defeated by the arbitrary conduct of the
Speaker ; but the temper that was evinced, the dismay exhibited, and the earnest desire
shown to avoid these disclosures, convinced me, though at that time I did not know the
contents of those letters, that there must be something there very unfortunate for Ministers.
The motion was carried, Mr. Starnes was summoned, and the package was marked and left
in his hands. Then came the last scene, in which the Government made an attempt, I
think, of a most unfair character, to place; their adversaries in the position of being appar-
ently ungenerous to a departed foe, or of being untrue to their political principles and
opinions of many years standing, and untrue, also, to the belief which they had expressed,
that the pending charges deserved serious attention and searching investigation. The
Government proposed that a public funeral should be given to Sir George Cartier, and that
a monument should be erected at the public expense in honor of him whom they designated
as a great statesman and an excellent man. One precedent there was for the proceeding,
but it was emphatically the exception which proved the rule—the rule that no such honors
SºFCH AT LONDON. 21
should be conferred on political characters. The motion was proposed in a thin house, and
upon the last day of the session, and so these men carried a resolution decreeing a public
monument to him on whose grave they are now engaged in heaping dirt. The only author-
itative statement we have had from the Government as to the Pacific is one declaring that
certain documents and arrangements were personal to Sir George Cartier, unknown to his
colleagues, for which they decline responsibility, and the odium of which they seek to cast
The Disallowance Trick.
upon him alone. Well, Sir, upon the 2nd of July the Committee met, as it was hoped, for
business; but, as usual, the Government was at work. The previous day, the anniversary
of Confederation, our national holiday, these patriots had employed in issuing a Govern-
ment proclamation disallowing the Oaths Bill. That disallowance was highly improper.
The first Minister himself, in a memorandum prepared by him on the 8th of June, 1868,
had accurately stated the rule as to interference by the Imperial Government with Colonial
legislation. I will read his words:–“ Of late years Her Majesty's Government has not, as
a general rule, interfered with the legislation of Colonies having representative institutions
and responsible Government, except in the cases specially mentioned in the instructions to
the Governor, or in matters of Imperial and not merely local interest.” Now, this matter
is neither mentioned in the instructions to the Governor, nor is it a matter of Imperial or
other than of merely local interest. The object was confessedly good, and if Parliament
had not the power to pass it, no one will pretend that it should remain so powerless. The
Imperial Government, therefore, acted in a most ill-advised manner in not leaving the Act
to its operation. The question of its legality could have been decided in our courts, and
could then have been brought before the highest tribunal open to us, the Judicial Committee
of the Privy Council; but, instead of that, the Imperial Government, under the advice of
the Law Officers of the Crown, not acting under the responsibility of Judges, and without
that pre-requisite of just judgment, the argument of both sides, undertook to wipe this law
out of our statute book. I call public attention to the observation I have just made, as
bearing strongly on the degree of respect you are to bestow on these decisions of the Law
Officers. None of you would be satisfied if, even in a trivial case affecting his own inter-
ests, the question were merely stated to the judge, and decided by him without argument on
either side. Our whole judicial system pre-supposes such argument as a condition of sound
judgment. There is an ancient maxim of the law, as holy as it is ancient, which teaches
that the judge who decides without hearing the other side, though he may have decided
justly, has acted unjustly. Nevertheless, on such a decision, this great question is said to
have been determined conclusively and for ever. But how different a course has been taken
with reference to other Acts. I could easily point out several objectionable statutes on
which this power was not exercised, and you will all remember an instance in which the
Imperial power was used, not in disallowing, but in confirming by Imperial legislation an
objectionable Act. The Act authorizing the Senate to administer oaths at its bar was left to
its operation. But in this case, on which so much depended, instead of adopting the wiser
the more judicious and constitutional course which I have suggested, disallowance in the
most rigorous form was adopted. But neither the views of the Law Officers of the Crown,
nor the order of the Queen's Privy Council in England, made that law less operative than it
was before. Its disallowance necessitated action upon this side of the water, and by the
Constitutional Act the Governor-General had the right to take that action in one or two
modes—either by proclamation, which he might issue at his convenience, or by message to
the Parliament upon its first meeting. Had the latter alternative been adopted, the Com-
mittee could have proceeded with the examination and the subsequent tº: on the
meeting of Parliament, would not have interfered with the Committee's labours. This
course might have been followed without any inconvenience, but the other course was re-
commended to the Governor, and the Act was disallowed by a proclamation framed by the
22 MR. BLAKE's
&
First Minister of Canada, and countersigned by him and the Secretary of State, issued on
the day before the sitting of the Committee, and thus depriving it of the power with which
it was before armed. Contrast this with the course taken upon another Act—the Act of the
Ontario Legislature—giving an additional allowance to Superior Court Judges. That Act
was condemned as beyond the powers of the Ontario Legislature by the Law Officers of the
Crown in England and the First Minister of Canada. How did the Minister proceed in this
ease ? Why, he reported to the Governor that the Act must be disallowed, unless
the Legislature, at its next session, should repeal it. He advised the Governor not to
disallow it immediately, but to leave it in the meantime, and it was left until the last day
for disallowance, until the year's salaries had been paid under the Act, and then at
the latest possible moment the disallowance was accomplished. I leave it to you to
guess why there was such a change of policy in the case of the Oaths Bill. Notwithstanding
what had taken place, Mr. Dorion and myself were of opinion that the Committee could
proceed. The Committee had been constituted without power to take evidence under oath.
with instructions to enquire into this charge. After the passing of the Oaths Bill, which
authorized Committee to take evidence under oath, in cases in which the House should have
resolved that this was desirable, the Committee was instructed under the authority of the
Act to take evidence upon oath ; our opinion was that the instruction fell with the Act,
upon which it was based. Our opinion also was that our major duty was the pursuit of the
investigation, that what we were called upon to do was to make the enquiry by all lawful
means in our power, and that by so doing we should best fulfil the orders of the House
and the expectations of the country That view, however, was over-ruled, and the
Committee adjourned until the 13th August. We were offered a Royal Commission, which
we declined, for reasons stated in letters written at the time, by which reasons we stand to-
The Prorogation.
day. I will discuss them shortly. It had now become obvious that there was a change in
the situation. During the sitting of Parliament, and when the proposal was made that the
Committee should meet on the 2nd of July, a statement had been made by the Minister that
all the evidence would be taken and the report of the Committee prepared before the 13th of
August, and that all the House would have to do would be to receive the report pro forma,
and be prorogued. It has been said that this was agreed to by both sides of the House. I
was not in the House at the time, but speaking from the reports and from the information
given me by my friends, I say there was no such agreement; on the contrary, Mr. Holton
pointed out to the Minister that he might not be in a position to advise a prorogation on the
13th of August, and subsequently Sir John said, that if it were true that they must have a
quorum, he would be exceedingly happy to see Mr. Holton fill his place in the same health,
with the same vigour, and with the same degree of combativeness as he displayed at that
meeting. Mr. Holton was there, he was combative, and with good cause, but the enemy
would not fight. But it was quite clear, that even had there been an understanding, it
could not have been binding upon the House, which is, and must be, free as air to determine
upon its course as the exigencies of the State may require. It was also clear that any such
understanding must have been based upon the statement, supposed to be correct by all
parties, that the Committee would have completed its labors, that the evidence would have
been taken, that the work would have been done, and only the final judgment would remain
to be disposed of at some future period. No man expected the prorogation to take place with
the evidence untaken, with the materials for forming a judgment uncollécted, with the work
undone. The whole basis had vanished upon the 2nd of July, when the Committee was adjourn-
ed, and it follows that it was the bounden duty of those who had the power and responsibility
of advising his Excellency to take immediate steps to meet the new exigency, and to arrange
that Parliament should have an opportunity of deciding what should now be done. That the
situation was changed has been practically confessed by Ministers themselves, for they have
SPEECH AT LONDON. 23
themselves acknowledged that in consequence of the events since the adjournment, as Oc-
tober session has become necessary. Government should have made the necessary arrange-
ments for the session on the 13th, being a business session ; or if this season was peculiarly
inconvenient for members, they should have arranged for an adjournment to a more suitable
period, although I maintain that no consideration of private convenience should have any
weight in the mind of a representative of the people, when compared to his paramount
duty to the State in a tremendous crisis like the present. Although that was the obvious
duty of the Government, it was equally obvious, from all the available sources of informa-
tion, that they intended themselves to remove this cause from the Commons, to create some
tribunal of their own devising, and to prevent the House from meeting for business this
year; and so, tired of waiting, and taunted by the Ministerial press with having made
baseless charges, Mr. Huntington authorized the publication of a portion of the evidence—
only a portion, however, as I happen to know. The publication at once took possession of
the public mind. It could not be slighted, for it consisted of the letters of Sir Hugh
Allan, confessed to be authentic by that person, the chief witness for the Government, and
the chief actor in the transaction ; and it was hoped by some people, that the effect pro-
duced by the publication would lead the Government to change its views and adopt the policy
I have indicated. But it is clear that the determination of the Government was different.
The publication of the telegrams and requisitions for money showed that further fatal
secrets were to be disclosed, and the desperate decision was confirmed to gag the Commons,
to destroy the Committee, and to set up that mockery of justice which is shortly to be per-
formed at Ottawa. It was announced that His Excellency would be absent from Ottawa, and
that a Commission had been issued for the purpose of proroguing Parliament, as the affair
would be purely formal. But, Sir, that announcement was contradicted by the event. His
Excellency thought, and thought rightly, that his first and highest duty was to be person-
ally present, and to assume, in his own proper person, the responsibility of whatever course
he might determine upon under the circumstances. He was there ; 130 members were there
as well; and of the absentees a very great majority were quite accessible. All the
representatives from Manitoba were there, and some twenty members from the
distant Provinces of the Atlantic sea-board; and that the attendance was not still larger
was due the fact that the Government did not ask any of their supporters to attend, and
that to those who enquired of them whether their attendance was desired, a negative
reply was returned. I say this with authority, because I have the best means of knowing
The Members Remonstrate.
its truth. Well, Sir, under these circumstances, close upon 100 members of Parliament
met for consultation, and they deemed the situation so alarming, and the crisis so unexampled,
everything indicating an immediate prorogation, as to warrant the determination—since
they were not likely to have an opportnnity, in a strictly Parliamentary way, upon the floor
of the House, of advising His Excellency on the question of prorogation or adjournment, or
of deciding what order should be taken for the prosecution of the enquiry—that their senti-
ments should be placed on record, and that His Excellency should be approached in the only
way which his Ministers had left open for approach. They signed and forwarded to His
Excellency a respectful, temperate, firm representation, stating that to prorogue Parliament
without giving it the opportunity of taking order for the prosecution of the enquiry, would
create intense dissatisfaction in the country. That document, which only repeated views
enunciated by thousands of petitions already before His Excellency, was adopted by more
members than would have made a majority on any division during the session ; 183 men
having voted on the largest division, 92 may be fairly said to be a majority in a full House.
The Government advised His Excellency to reject that appeal, to prorogue the House, and
to issue a Commission, and he agreed to follow their advice. He answered those who had
made the representation, as to manner graciously indeed, for the manner was his own ; but
24 MR. BLAKE's
\
as to matter most unhappily ; the matter was his Ministers'. I suppose that the reasonings
eveu of a Viceroy are not free from criticism, but had these been the reasonings of the
Viceroy himself, I confess I should have felt some embarrassment in the choice of an epithet
with which to characterize them. I could not call them puerile, because Lord Dufferin is a
mature statesman; I could not call them disingenuous because Lord Dufferin is an honorable
man ; and I would have been inclined to abandon in despair the search for an adjective
which might fit at once my sense of the proprieties and my conviction of the truth. But I
am relieved from any such embarrassment. These are the arguments on which his Ministers
advised him to the course he took; these are the reasons which they advised him to offer to
the memorialists and the public as the justification of the course they recommended ; and I
can have no hesitation in dealing, fairly I trust, yet firmly and freely, with the argument.
What then do these men advise the chief of the State to say. First, they say that because
the signatures do not constitute a numerical majority of the whole House, therefore His Excel.
leney has no assurance that they represent the feeling of Parliament. That, sir, is true in
the letter, but false in the spirit; for the reason already given that the number was a
practical majority of the House; and for the further reason that the views of the House had
already, during that session, been plainly indicated by its ananimous resolution that this
matter should be prosecuted by itself through the medium of its select Committee. Repeated
and anxious debates had taken place as to the mode of the enquiry, and as to the securities
for its being thorough and exhaustive. So there was the best possible means for knowing
that the feeling of the Commons was that the enquiry should be conducted by a Parlia-
mentary Committee, and certainly the signatures of so many members to the representa.
tion, afforded good ground for that which, even in the absence of any evidence, was
the only fair conclusion, namely, that the Commons had not changed its mind; nor
was there the shadow of a foundation for the notion that the House was prepared
to reverse its decision, to dissolve its Committee, to abandon the duty it had under-
taken, and to leave to others the determination whether there should be an enquiry, and
what sort of enquiry there should be. Again, remember that these signataries did
not venture to say that any particular course would be taken by Parliament. They
simply advised His Excellency to give the House an opportunity of telling him what it
should determine. There was no dictation as the course of the House ; there was only the
the assertion that the House desired to deliberate and decide on a course to be taken ; and
who can doubt that this was, as it ought to have been, the desire of the House ? Let me
now turn to the second argument adduced. These men, these incriminated Ministers,
advised His Excellency to say that to accede to the representation would be—what ? Why,
to declare them guilty of the crimes which were charged against them : What said the
representation ? That there would be dissatisfaction unless Parliament were permitted to
take order for the trial of the charges; and the argument is, that to accede to this request
is to agree that the charges are proved; that the accused are guilty; and so, of course, to
dispense with the trial altogether. Sir, for such an argument, the words puerile and disin-
genuous are the fittest epithets I know. Well, Sir, again they advise His Excellency to say
that his difficulties would disappear if their could be a call of the House, but that this was
impossible. Why impossible The impossibilities are said to be physical—the great
distances and the fact of the alleged understanding as to prorogation ; but these, Sir, are
difficulties which extend only to the time of the call. They are not difficulties in the way
Adjournment the Alternative.
of adjournment. They are not difficulties to be solved only be prorogation, They are
simply objections, which are to be met by fixing for the adjourned session a convenient
time, having regard to the expressed views of all parties that the enquiry should be prose-
cuted at the earliest possible moment. An adjournment might have taken place even to the
day named by His Excellency for the new session, although I should have
SPEECH AT LONDON. 25
thought that a long time. The middle of October he named as the period
for the new session, to which the faith of the Crown is pledged ; and
had a proposal for adjournment been made, I am able confidently to affirm that
no objection would have been raised. Those who are responsible for the management of
the Opposition in Parliament, felt it their duty on this occasion to assemble early at the
capſtal, and calmly to deliberate and take counsel together as to their course under various
contingencies. They thought from the language of the Ministers and their organs, that
the absence of Ministerialists would be alleged as rendering it unfair to proceed at once
with business, and the unanimous decision arrived at was, that while they felt Ministers
had disregarded their obvious duty in not having their supporters there, and being ready to
proceed, they should not stand upon that for an instant, but should say, “Throwing upol,
you the responsibility of sending back to their homes one hundred and thirty members, we
agree to your proposal for an adjournment, and leave you to name the day when we shall
meet in order to resume the discussion of this question.” That would have been the attitude
of the Opposition upon the point of adjournment. His Excellency has said that the question
before him was one of very great difficulty and embarrassment. Where the chief of the State
so expresses himself, and where there is not, as here there is not, the slightest imputation
of partizanship or of designed leaning to either side, I agree that his decision is to be can-
vassed with tenderness and respect ; but, Sir, while that is the duty we owe to the Chief of
the State, to the State herself we owe a higher duty still. And while I declined on a
former occasion—at the time when the determination of His Excellency was made known—
to say a single word upon that subject, confining myself then to what is the main and sub-
stantial issue here, the advice given by his Ministers, upon which he acted, and for whieh
they are responsible, I do not feel at liberty to let this occasion pass without saying a word
or two upon what my reading of the Constitution would lead me to believe was the true
duty of His Excellency in such a crisis. My belief is that the spirit of the Constitution,
properly interpreted’ would have led him to say to his Ministers, “As your supporters are
not here, ask for an adjournment; if you please, I will do that which is not without prece-
dent, I will send down a message requesting an adjournment ; but either with or without a
message ask an adjournment. Take what time is necessary, name the earliest conve-
nient day, and if the House declines to accede to the request, then in order to place
you in the same position which you would occupy if an adjournment had been
granted, I will give you a prorogation, and will call a new session for the day
named ; but further than this I decline to interfere with Parliament.” My belief
is that this course would have given to Ministers every advantage in the way of
their followers being present, and to the absent members every advantage in the way of
facilitating their attendance in Parliament, which the course pursued has given, and
that it would have possessed these enormous advantages, that Parliament would
be left undisturbed in the prosecution of the great enquiry, that the committee
would not be destroyed by the prorogation, and that the conduct of the case would not be
wrested from Parliament, in order to hand it over to others named by the accused. I have
every respect, Sir, for the doctrine that the Governor is as a rule to be guided by the advice
of his responsible Ministers ; but there can be no doubt that the prerogative of the Crown
may, and should, be exercised under certain circumstances against that advice. The con-
stitutional doctrine on some aspects of the cognate question of dissolution is well settled. A
Ministry defeated at an early period, in a House elected under its own auspices, has no rigl,t
to another dissolution, and the constitutional rule is that advice to dissolve under such cir.
cumstances should be refused. On the other hand, a Ministry formed out of a House which
has been elected under the influence of the opposite party, is, as a general rule, entitled 'o
advise a dissolution, and such advice ought to be followed. I do not say you can find the
line so clearly laid down for the present case, but I do say that on principle and analogy,
*
*
2
6
MR. BLAKE's
Vitiated Counsels.
this was a case for refusing the advice to prorogue. Mark that it was upon the advice of
incriminated Ministers, against whom the House of Commons had commenced a process,
which process was pending ; of incriminated Ministers, against whom a case had been made,
which they themselves acknowledged requires explanation, that the Governor was asked to
take a step which would destroy the process, which would nullify the proceedings, which
would deprive him of the advice and counsel of his Parliament, and leave him under the
control, or the advice at any rate, of those Ministers, upon a subject so materially affecting
their fortunes and their fame. Mark, too, that the consequence of his refusing that advice
would be simply this ; he would have said to the Parliament and the people, “Gentlemen,
I could not, under the circumstances, reverse the determination arrived at by the House of
Commons, that a Committee of that House should prosecute this matter ; I could not,
under the circumstances, decline to be advised by my Parliament. I felt that it was a Case
in which my Parliamant ought to decide what was to be done, and I have declined to be
advised to dismiss you. I could not hesitate wheh the choice was between my free Parlia-
ment and my inculpated Ministers. I have elected to take the responsibility—of what %–
of keeping around me at this critical emergency the great Council of the nation ; and when
an issue is pending between the Commons of Canada and my Ministers, of keeping intact the
power of the Commons, and taking their advice as to the extent to which my Ministers shalr
be allowed to interfere with the conduct of the enquiry.” Can you doubt what the answeh
of the Parliament and the people of Canada—of any man with a spark of freedom and
patriotism in his bosom—would have been to an appeal like that ? From one end to the
other of the Dominion, I venture to say it would have been affirmed that the
position was unassailable, that it was a just and proper use of the prerogative
to keep Parliament together, and to seek its advice in the emergency, and that
His Excellency should be sustained. That determination would have been entirely
in favor of popular rights, and the people would have joyfully recognized the use of the pre-
rogative in the people's favor. Talk of the advice of responsible Ministers ; Sir, it is .
absurd to apply these high sounding, words to the matter on hand. On the plainest and
most ordinary principles, it is only in the case of overruling necessity, where there is he
other possible alternative, that the advice of any one, as man or Minister, is to be taken on
a matter in which his personal interests are at stake, and may obviously be opposed to the
interests of the State in whose name he professes to advise. Here there was no such over-
ruling necessity, there was a very obvious alternative. His Excellency had his choice be-
tween taking the advice of the Ministers and taking the advice of the Commons. He
should have declared his Ministers incompetent to advise him in their own ease to dismiss
the Commons, and he should have resorted to the latter for that counsel which they would
have been prepared to give. Although my opinion is, that the true spirit of the Constitu-
tion points to a couclusion opposite to that at which the Governor arrived, yet that, after
all, is not the main issue before us, because His Excellency, by accepting the advice ten-
dered to him, has placed the responsibility of that advice upon his Ministers, and they
must bear that intolerable burden. And if it was, as His Excellency has stated, a serious
and embarrassing situation in which he stood, when he was called upon to decide whether
he should act under or against the advice of his Ministers, who can doubt what the situation
is of the Ministers who have so advised him—of the Ministers who have advised him to
dismiss Parliament, to annul what Parliame, it had done, and to form for the prosecution of
this enquiry new machinery—machinery of which Parliament had disapproved, and
which I hope, believe, and trust, at no distant day, Parliament will unequivocally condemn.
Judging Themselves.
But, sir, his Ministers advised his Excellency to go further ; they put in his mouth als
opinion on the present state of the case upon the evidence already given, and I commend it
&
SPEECH AT LONDON. 27
to those, few in number and insignificant in importance, who yet affirm that there has been
no evidence to touch the Ministers at all. It is not a cheering expression of opinion, com-
ing from the lips of the accused; it is not at all cheering when we consider that it is the
judgment of those who are themselves upon their trial. Listen to a few of the words:—
“The charges,” His Excellency is advised to say, “require the most searching investiga-
tion ;” “the correspondence has produced a painful impression upon the public mind;” and
“certain documents have appeared in connection with these matters of very grave signifi-
cance,” in regard to which “the fullest explanations must be given.” That is the state-
ment they have put into the mouth of His Excellency with regard to their present position.
“The fullest explanations must be given,” Given by whom Given by the men who
wrote them, and signed them, and are responsible for them | I trust the day will shortly
come for the giving of these explanations; I may not say I hope they will be, because I
know they cannot be, satisfactory. But Ministers add a saving clause. They say—“no
proof has yet been produced which necessarily connects these papers with the culpable trans-
actions of which it is asserted they form a part, however objectionable they may appear in
juxtaposition with the correspondence.” That is the saving clause. It is perhaps not as
decided as the Ministers would have liked to make it, but dubious as it is, I object to it. I
declare that if the documents are genuine—and they appear to be admitted as genuine by
this State paper—they conclusively establish the guilt of the Ministers. They con-
clusively establish that Ministers with one hand were signing assurances for the giving
of this contract to Sir Hugh Allan, while they were signing with the other hand requisi-
tions for money to be paid by Sir Hugh, receiving that money, and distributing it to corrupt
the electors of this country. That is what is established by these documents, and I know
of no evidence which is required in order to bring the conviction to any honest, unpreju-
diced mind, that these transactions had a connection. I repel with indignation—I cannot
seriously argue—the absurd idea that while Ministers were bargaining with Sir Hugh Allan
about the gontract, the other transaction, which was then going on, was entirely kept apart ;
that the right hand was ignorant of what the left was doing. Now, sir, in order that we
may fairly estimate the enormity of the public crime which has been committed in advising
prorogation, it will be useful to enquire why it is that an impeachment, the procedure with
which this enquiry is in substance identical, is not abated by a prorogation, or even a disso-
lution of Parliament, but stands in just the same position when Parliament resumes as be:
fore the prorogation or dissolution of the House ? Why, it is for this reason, that the secu-
rity of the Crown and the security of the people alike demand that the prerogative of the
Crown should not include the power in any way to influence an impeachment. The rule and
its reasons were fully established in the course of the impeachment of Warren Hastings,
and largely on the argument of William Pitt, who demonstrated that it was for the security
of the Crown, because otherwise the Crown might be advised by Ministers, against whom, or
against whose influential friends an impeachment was depending, to make use of the preroga-
tive for the purpose of baffling the process, a course which would result in the alienation of
the affections of the people, which constitute the secure foundation of the English throne. Just
because impeached Ministers would, when guilty, inevitably advise the Crown to prorogue or
dissolve, if the effect of such an act would be to abate their impeachment—just because it
was impossible that under such circumstances the impeached Ministers could faithfully advise
the Crown, it was determined that their advice, if followed, should not be operative to
Reasons against Prorogation.
abate the impeachment ; and so the Crown was rescued from a position of difficulty and
danger. The security of the people, too, required this limitation ; and for the same obvious
reason, namely, that the exercise of this prerogative by the Crown on the advice of impeached .
Ministers would render it utterly impossible to bring great offenders against the State to
justice. Impunity produces crime ; and so the safety of the people and the security of the
3
28 MR. BLAKE's
Crown were alike subserved by this limitation of the prerogative. Now the oroceeding
against the Canadian Ministry is accepted on all hands to be substantially an impeachment ;.
not technically so, it is true, in consequence of the defects of the Constitution ; but the
technical difference leaves untouched the great considerations of policy which we have been
discussing, and which apply to this proceeding. Let us apply them. They teach us that,
the enquiry should not be broken up by a prorogation ; and as the Committee would be
dissolved by the prorogation, the result is necessarily that the prorogation should not have
taken place. Every argument which is used against a prorogation abating an impeachment
in England, is an argument against proroguing in Canada, pending the enquiry, the result
being just that which is condemned in England. In England the prerogative is limited, so
that it cannot do the mischief ; here it does the mischief, and therefore it ought not be used.
There was another reason for Parliament not being prorogued at that moment. Sir Hugh
Hugh Allan has been in England. He has, we are told, made conditional arrangements by
which, under certain modifications of the Charter, he may be able to sell the Company's
bonds. We read in the Ministerial organs a few days ago that there was a meeting of the
Pacific Railway Company at Ottawa with the view of arranging terms, and of submitting
them to the Government of the day. Now I hope we all agree that, whatever be the fate of
the charges against the Government, or of the Government itself, Sir Hugh Allan must not
continue at the head of that enterprise. I trust no one will say that the man who has
brought—whether his letters be true or false—the profoundest humilation on this country
should be allowed to retain a position, the most important and influential which exists in
the community. The President of this great Company, the controller of its enormous
interests, will occupy a position predominant in this country for many yesrs. Sir Hugh
has injured Canada more than I should have supposed a few months ago Canada could be
injured by any one man. What position do we occupy to-day in relation to the people of
the United States ? We have been accustomed to pride ourselves on the comparative elevation
of Canadian morals. and the comparative purity of Canadian politics. We can do so no longer.
With these letters before us, we cannot refuse to believe that this man expended and found
persons to receive enormous sums for purposes which would not bear the light ; we are
a humilated people, and he is one of the chief authors of our shame. Under these circum-
stances, an important duty of Parliament was and will be at the earliest moment to see that
no further stipulations are entered into, and that no further arrangements are made with
regard to the charter ; and yet for all we know, even now, the Government may be engaged
in further complicating our rights. Under all the circumstances I, for my part, can
attribute the prorogation of Parliament to nothing but the desperate view that the position
of the Government, being the worst conceivable, it was in the turn of events that time
might mend it. But, of course, it was necessary to preserve some slight appearance of fair
dealing and to resort to some device which might appear to excuse the delay, and it was also
necessary.to withdraw from Parliament, as far as possible, the control of the enquiry, which
would only be done by providing some other tribunal. It was not sufficient to have a Com-
mittee of which three out of five were selected by the Ministers; it was necessary that every
single one of the persons who were to conduct the enquiry should be nominees of the Govern-
ment. So it was determined that a Royal Commission should be issued. Ministers knew
knew perfectly well that neither Mr. Dorion nor I could accept such a Commission, that
Parliament had refused to assent to it; they knew from the members' protest our public
attitude; they knew from the beginning that it was impossible for the Opposition, without
violating the principles they had laid down, to recognize their tribunal. But it was thought
some cry could be raised and some feeble attempt made to keep up appearances, which might
Plausible Pretences.
be successful for a time. What was the pretence? There was but one pretence—the dis-
allowance of the Oaths Bill. Now there have been pointed out several parliamentary modes
SPEECH AT TONIOON. º 29
by which the oath may be administered. I shall refer to one only, that which at the
moment commends itself most to my judgment. It is the proposal that an Act should be
passed authorizing certain named persons, members of the Committee or others, to
administer on oath. This would, in fact, constitute a parliamentary as distinguished from
a Royal Commission. Many years ago, by such an Act in England, there was established a
Commission of Inquiry into alleged abuses in the navy. The Commissioners named in the
Act, which required them to examine witnesses on oath and to report to the Speaker, made
that famous report which contained the charges upon which Henry Dundas, then Lord
Melville, was dismissed from his office, removed from the Privy Council, and afterwards
impeached. So here is a precedent, and it is the one which seems most suitable for
adoption, in order to secure the taking of the evidence under oath. Now, this plan alone,
leaving out all the others which are open to us, and assuming what I am not prepared to
admit, that the House of Commons has not itself the disputed power, disposes entirely of
the disingenuous argument that the Royal Commission was necessary to obtain the oath.
But this further observation is also to be made, that if a Royal Commission were the
only course, there is no reason why it should not have been a Commission of members,
named by the House and issued on an address by the House. That plan I do not myself
recommend, but there can be no doubt of its infinite superiority to the plan adopted of
defying Parliament, and refusing to take its advice altogether. Parliament might not have
acted wisely in passing such an address, but at any rate it could not complain that by acting
on the address the Crown had wrested from it any of its privileges. Besides, if the Ceylon
case were applicable, it is itself a precedent for a Commission upon address ; but by no means
authorizes the Crown to take the affair into its own hands without any signification of the
will of the Commons. Under any circumstances, even supposing that the only alternative
was that the enquiry should take place without the oath, the House should clearly have had
the opportunity of deciding whether it would act by Committee or Commission, and should
have been spared the outrage inflicted upon it by the exercise of the prerogative. To the
Commons, from time immemorial, has belonged the right to institute, prosecute, and control
proceedings for the impeachment of Ministers and others charged with high offences against
the State, and for enquiry into charges affecting the honor and independence of own members.
Nobody denies this fundamental doctrine. It is one of the greatest securities for liberty
that the people's representatives, responsible directly to them, and liable to be by them
dismissed in case they fall in their duty, should have this exclusive right, and be charged
with this solemn responsibility, thus preventing those who act as advisers of the Crown
from giving that ill advice by which they and their friends may be sheltered from justice.
Let me trouble you with a short quotation which very aptly enunciates the views expressed
by the House of Commons at a very early date, and retained by it to the present day.
Solicitor-General Lechmere, in 1715, on the impeachment of the rebel Lords, used this
language:—“The Commons of England would not permit the fate of those prosecutions to
depend on the care or skill of those who are versed in the ordinary forms of justice. No
instance ever has arisen in English history, where our ancestors have permited a prose-
cution against the chief offender to be carried anywhere but in full Parliament. In justice
to the King, as well as to the people, we ought to take this into our own hands and not to
entrust it to any other body. It was the greatest ease, security and support of the Crown,
that no power should be lodged there to prevent the Commons from examining into the
offence, or to defeat the judgment given in full Parliament. And he took it to be the
greatest advantage to the Crown that the Constitution of the Kingdom had not, he thought,
invested it with such power; and, on the other hand, such a power was utterly inconsistent
with the fundamental rights of Parliament.” And mark this, that the fuller the
development of the doctrine of responsible Government the completer the control
by Ministers over the prerogative, the narrower the discretion accorded to the chief
of the State independently of his Ministers, the more apparent becomes the
30 MR. BLAKE's
necessity of treating as an exception to the general rule an occasion when the personal
position of the Minister conflicts with the public interest, and renders him incompetent to
give disinterested advice. The prerogative of the Crown is now said to be the property of
the Minister—the property of the unimpeached Minister perhaps, but surely not the instru-
ment whereby the impeached Ministers is to thwart justice, and to violate the fundamental
right, of the Commons to control enquiry into such high offences. Sir, the interference of
any other court of justice in the land with the high court of Parliament, even though that
other court be established by Act of Parliament, is well settled to be a “a high contempt.”
Parliament has got, and Parliament must be allowed to keep, undisturbed hold of the great
r Unparalleled Audacity.
cause. For the accused Ministers, while Parliament is actually engaged in the prosecution
of the cause, to turn it out of doors, in order that the trial may cease, and then, forsooth, to
say Parliament can do no more, the Committee is dissolved, there is an end of the investi-
gation, we have no alternative now but to take the control into our own hands—was ever
such a spectacle presented since English history began 2 No, Sir, I defy those who search
even into the dark ages, unless perhaps they look to the evil days which preceded the great
rebellion, I defy them to find anything approaching the audacity of this procedure of
Ministers in breaking up their trial, while actually progressing in the proper form, and
on the same day creating a tribunal to suit themselves for their own prosecution. The
appointment of this Commission is a high contempt of Parliament, and you are not to
listen to those who tell you that the privileges and rights of Parliament are not im-
portant to you. The privileges of Parliament are the privileges of the people and the
rights of Parliament are the rights of the people. It is for those rights and in those interests
alone that we strive to-day. We are not separate from you ; from you we spring,
to you we return ; in your interests and your name alone we speak and act, and it.
is for your rights that we are now contending. Besides being such a breach
of the privileges of Parliament in the general, this Commission is a gross and
and glaring breach in the particular of its most important privilege—the freedom of speech,
and of debates and proceedings in the House. Sir, who is there that does not know that
freedom of speech is liberty Not the greatest security for liberty—it is liberty itself.
Freedom of speech —give me freedom of speech for a people and I will undertake that this
freedom shall secure for them every other freedom—freedom of life, freedom of person, and
freedom of property. It is by virtue of that right, not yet—thank God!—annulled in
Canada, that I am here to-night and, it is by virtue of that privilege that I expect when
Parliament meets again that we shall stand approved before the people and the
people's representatives. Sir, this charge was made by my honorable friend in his
capacity as a representative of the people on the floor of the House of Commons, admittedly
in the proper place, and in proper language, and followed by the proper motion. That
language of his, that resolution of his, that proceeding of his, is not, and cannot be cog-
nizable in any other court or place in this country. We can discuss it at public meetings,
we can invoke public opinion upon it, but no tribunal in Canada already in existence, or
which can be devised by the Crown, has the right to enquire into the matter, or to investi-
gate whether the charge be true or false. The very instant the contrary is determined, that
very instant the British Constitution is changed—that very instant the security that you
have for liberty is gone; because this security depends upon the absolute immunity of the
people's representatives from discussion by any tribunal outside of Parliament of any words
by them spoken in Parliament. Sir, in the hey-day of freedom will you abandon the
securities for liberty If you do, l know not how soon you may fall upon evil days in
which, deprived of those securities, your liberty may be taken from you. I say to you that,
at this instant, by the unconstitutional acts of the present Administration, the Government
of this country has been seized into their hands; that at this moment, by their act of
SPEECH AT LONDON. 31
prorogation, they have substituted an arbitrary and tyrannical Government by the Cabinet,
for the Parliamentary and popular Government which we have hitherto enjoyed. Let us
not forget the history of the past; let us not forget what has been said, and done, and
suffered in order to secure for you the liberty which the Commission impeaches. Look at
its language. It recites that Lucius Seth Huntington, a member of Parliament, in his place
in the House made certain charges against Ministers, and moved for a Committee—that the
Crown has appointed Commissioners to enquire into and take evidence, and report their
opinions upon the charges so made, and forthwith these Commissioners proceed to write to
the member of Parliament who, in the discharge of his duty, had taken this stand, telling him
that they, forsooth, had been authorized to enquire into it, and calling upon him to give a
list of his witnesses, and to appear before them at the time and place they appoint—dese-
crating by that appointment the people's House—there to answer and there to make good
his charge. I see in the Ministerial prints that in effect he is upon his defence,
and that the question really to be investigated is how in the world these honest and
honorable transactions—which all these Ministerial gentlemen are so glad came to
light—did come to light ! The question is, who got the letters, who got the telegrams, and
how in the world did so much hidden virtue see the day ? Well, sir, let us refer to one ex-
Sir John Eliot.
ample in English history: One of the noblest, I will not say the noblest, for there are so
many noble men in English history, but one of the noblest of them all, was Sir John Eliot.
He was the leader of the popular party in Parliament in the evil days of the first Charles.
He alleged in Parliament that the Council and Judges had conspired to trample under foot
the liberties of the subject. This charge, in general terms, another member of Parliament
has recently made. It is the essence of the charge made by Mr. Huntington lately, that
the liberties of the subject had been conspired against and trampled under foot by Ministers.
Well, Sir, Parliament was dissolved, and after dissolution an information was laid in the
King's Bench by the King's Attorney-General against this man for the charge so made. He
pleaded to the jurisdiction, alleging that in Parliament alone could his words be noticed ;
and to show you that I do not over-estimate the importance of the question, let me recall the
wórds in which the great historian, Hallam, describes the issue:–“This brought forward,
says Hallam, “the great question of privilege, on which the power of the House of Commons,
and consequently the character of the English Constitution, seemed evidently to depend.”
The character of the English Constitution evidently depended upon the question whether a
charge made by a member in Parliament could be taken cognizance of by any other Court.
Well, the King's judges decided for the King, and ordered that Sir John Eliot should pay a
fine of £2,000, and be confined in prison until he made his submission to the King. He
who had occupied the highest positions, who was the leader of the popular party in Parlia
ment, and filled the important post of Vice-Admiral, was imprisoned in the Tower. At any
moment, on making his humble submission, he would have been released by the King.
Had a Parliament been called, he would have been released by Parliament. In those bad
days Parliament was not annually convoked, and was sometimes also very suddenly pro-
rogued, and so, unable to ask redress from the people, or to obtain justice from the Crown,
he lingered in the gaol. Let me read to you some affecting words in which, during that
close confinement which was wearing out his life, he describes to you his sufferings:—“To
“be made poor and naked ; to be imprisoned and restrained ; nay, not to be at all; not to
“have the proper use of anything; not to have the knowledge of society ; not to have
“being or existence; his faculties confiscated; his friends debarred his presence; himself
“deprived the world ; I will not tell you all this, suffered in your service, for you, your
“children, and posterity, to preserve your rights and libérties, that as they were the in-
“heritance of your fathers, from you they might descend to your sons.” Towards the end of
his life he wrote these lines to the famous John Hampden :—
32 & MR. BLAKE's
“My lodgings are removed, and I am now where candlelight may be suffered, but
scarce fire. I hope you will think that this exchange of places makes not a change of
mind. The same protection is still with me, and the same confidence, and these things
can have end by Him that gives them being. None but my servants, hardly my sons, have
admittance to me. My friends I must desire for their own sakes to forbear coming to the
Tower.” *
A Suffering Patriot.
He was in the prime of life, not yet 41 years old, but the close confineffient brought
on consumption. His physicians advised that to remain was death, and that to be enlarged
for a time was probably life. He sent in a petition to the King, stating what his physician
advised, and requesting enlargement. The King answered that it was not humble enough.
He then sent a second petition. It is short, let me read it —“Sir, I am heartily sorry I
have displeased your Majesty, and having so said do humbly beseech you, once again, to set
me at liberty, that when I have recovered again I may return back to my prison, there to
undergo such punishment as God hath allotted to me.” He was told that it was not humble
enough. He did not petition again. Being very near his end, he caused a picture to be
made of his attenuated form, and directed it to be hung upon the walls at Port Eliot, in
order that it might be preserved in his family “as a perpetual memorial of his hatred of
tyranny,” and there it still hangs beside another one of the great leader of the Commons,
taken shortly before in the pride of his strength and vigor. The contrast is one of the
most affecting spectacles which any man can witness. Soon after, of that imprisonment, he
died. His son humbly petitioned that he might have his body to be buried in his Cornish
home. The ruthless King replied, “Let the body of Sir John Eliot be buried in the church
of that parish wherein he died,” and he was buried in the Tower. No stone marks his
grave, but it has been well said that “while freedom subsists in England he will not want
a monument.” When next the necessities of the King drove him to call a Parliament, one
of the first acts of the Commons was to declare the judgment against Eliot illegal, and a
high breach of the privileges of Parliament. Subsequently, that judgment was brought up
in the House of Lords, and was by them, as the Supreme Court of Judicature, reversed as
illegal and void ; and at a later date, at the day of the re-settlement of the British
Constitution in our present charter, the Bill of Rights, an express declaration was inserted
in these words, “that the freedom of speech and debate or proceedings in Parliament ought
not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or place out of Parliament.” That solemn
declaration had been affirmed by many precedents ; it was sanctified by that martyr's blood,
and it is this privilege and right, the violation of which you are now called upon to Sanc-
tion or condemn. Are we the worthy sons of such sires as these ? Have we brought to this
side of the world the true notions of English liberty, or are we in these palmy days of
freedom to forget what were the trials, what the expenditure of time and pains, of blood
and treasure, by which our ancestors secured those jewels which we are now told are trifles
to be flung away? Sir, I recall to you the position in those days of old London, the city
after which yours is named. During those troublous times, when the King tried to arrest
the five members, Parliament was practically turned out of its house by the advent of the
King in person to seek the objects of his wrath. Then the city of London was found to be
the guardian and protector of the peoples' liberties. In the ancient City Hall, Parliament
assembled and deliberated under the guard of the city trainbands, Thus old London bore
a prominent part in making that struggle a successful one, and I believe that as you have
brought to this land the name, so you will preserve the traditions of that famous city, and
that you will be amongst the foremost to rise up against the infamous attempt which has in
Parliamentary Security Violated.
these latter days been made to violate your sacred rights. Sir, I do not pretend for a mo-
ment that these Royal Commissioners design to punish, or could punish Mr. Huntington
SPEECEI AT LONDON. 33
for the words he uttered in Parliament, but I point out to you that the principle upon
which the Commission is issued is utterly incompatible with his security, or that of any
other of your representatives. The principle violated by the Commission is that no tribunal
can be constituted which shall take any cognizance, which shall know aught of what trans-
pires in Parliament, that the House alone can deal with what its members say. If you
allow the violation of that principle by the creation of a tribunal permitted, nay required,
to take such cognizance, how shall you fall back on the old and sacred rule, when the dark
days come, as come they surely will, if you permit the jewels of liberty to be wrested from
you ? But the Commission is, upon other grounds, in my judgment, illegal and void. In
the first place it is contrary to the fundamental principles of justice, that either the accu-
sers or the accused should have the creation or control of the tribunal which is to do any
material thing in the trial. That commends itself to every man. Everyone feels that it
would be monstrous that he should himself be tried, or that anything important with ref-
erence to his trial, should be done by a body of men all chosen by his accusers. Which of
us, in any private contention, would agree that the other party should name the persons
who were to take and report on the evidence % Would not each of us say, “’No, it is an
unfair advantage ; let us agree ; let one of us name one party, and the other name another,
and let us or they agree upon a third. I cannot consent that either of us should
have the exclusive nomination of the persons who are to perform such an important duty.”
But it is said that this is not a material thing ; it is said, to be simply a recording of evi-
dence. Do not be led away by any sueh fallacy as that. I tell you that the questions which
will arise before the tribunal, however and whenever constituted, as to the limitations of
this enquiry, as to the order in which the witnesses shall be called, as to the mode in
which they shall be examined, as to the character of the answers which shall be accepted
as satisfactory, are of the essence of the great cause. I tell you, so strong is my con-
viction on this point, that I decided if the Committee, of which I was a member, had
been turned by the House into a close Committee, so that I should not have had the protec-
tion of public opinion and the light of day, to decline to sit upon it an hour longer. That
was not because publicity alone would be a sufficient protection, but because it would be a
partial guard, at any rate, against extreme injustice being done by the majority to the min-
ority. If there was that risk of injustice with the Committee, where both sides were re-
presented, though unequally, has the risk ceased with the Commission, which represents
one side alone Why, Sir, the whole foundation of our system of justice is subverted ; the
jury system is subverted ; and the right of challenge is destroyed by allowing one of the
parties to name the persons who shall be judges of the fact and of the law What reason,
what justice is there in it ! Does it not shock every honest mind that one of the parties to
the cause should have the power of appointing the Commission charged with the trial and
judgment of the cause ! The Commission is given the same powers as were proposed to the
Committee. We were told, while that Committee was going on, that we had most important
powers, that we were the judges, that some of us were utterly unfit to sit there, and could
not do our duty because we were anxious to get office, forsooth ! We were not told, however,
that the chairman was unfit because — because he had happened to receive some of the
money; but that was not generally known just then. However, Sir, those men who
criticised our position as Committee men, asserted that our duty was very important, and by
necessary consequence must admit that the duty of the Commission is equally important.
Now, Sir, there is yet more—this Commission is authorised to report its opinions upon this
matter, and the Commissioners themselves in the Chairman's letter to Mr. Huntington, have
expressly stated that they are “to enquire into and report upon the matters stated in his
Whitewashing Wanted.
resolution.” The obvious design is to obtain a whitewashing report from this Commission,
and afterwards to call together Parliament and say to it, “These gentlemen heard the
#
34 MR. BLAKE's
evidence; they saw the witnesses, and knew exactly what degree of credibility was to be
attached to each ; you did not see them, and you could not judge who told the truth. Will
you not accept their opinion ? Who so qualified to judge as the persons who heard the
evidence #" These are the arguments that will be addressed to the House. I fully recognize
the advantage to the judges of being present when the enquiry is going on. I always
argued that it should be conducted while Parliament was sitting, so that members could
see and hear the witnesses, and, for my part, I decline to accept a Commission which the
accused has appointed, which is itself to determine the limits of the enquiry, to decide on
the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence, and to report on the truth or
falsehood of the charges. Remember again, that those who talk so much to you about oaths and
the superiority of judges over a Parliamentary Committee, lose sight of the fact that, while the
Constitution provides a security that the judge shall do fairly his judicial work, in that he is
sworn to do it honestly and fearlessly without favor or partiality, those gentlemen who
comprise this Commission—two of whom are judges, and the other an ex-judge—are of
course unsworn in this investigation, to which their oaths of office do not in the slightest
degree apply; and therefore that alleged security of a judicial tribunal is not given,
since the men who have to try, though some of them happen to be judges in another
capacity, are not in this one sworn judges. I do not attach too much importance to that.
The Committee was not sworn, the new Committee may be unsworn ; but when you are
called upon to contrast the position of the Committee with the superiority of the judicial
character, and the sacredness of the judicial obligation, it is well to remember that the safe-
guard which the law declares to be necessary in judicial tribunals does not extend to this
The Commission Unconstitutional.
particular tribunal. Again, this Commission is not within the reason of Royal Commissions
at all. Such Commissions are issued in order to inform the Government of the day upon
matters of which they are ignorant—to make enquiries into things of which the Government
is unaware, in order that they may be the better able to determine what the public interest
requires in matters of administration. That is the legitimate object of such Commissions,
but in this matter who can say that the minds of Ministers require to be informed ! It is the
public mind that requires to be informed by Ministers themselves. They know ; we are
ignorant. They destroy the machinery we had provided in order that we might inform our-
selves, and they appoint a Commission that they may find out what they knew already. Sir,
this Commission is entirely without warrant, either of the common or the statute law. The
great master of the English law, Sir Edward Coke, laid down that, “a Commission is a
delegation by warrant of an Act of Parliament or of the common law, whereby jurisdiction,
power, or authority is transferred to another court. All Commissions of new invention are
against law till they have allowance by Act of Parliament.” This is, in effect, a Com-
mission to enquire into crimes and offences committed by particular persons, and which,
if Parliament chooses, can be dealt with by the courts ; for the offence charged is a misde-
meanor, punishable by the law. Now, sir, commissions of this character have been adjudged
illegal, because they interfere with the ordinary course of justice, which is one of the greatest
securities of the people. It is your security and mine that there is a general standing law
providing the machinery for bring to trial all offenders against the other laws of the land, and
it is of the utmost consequence that there should be no quuestioning of offences cognizable
by the courts, except under the authority of the general law and by the tribunal constituted
for the trial of all such offences. Remember, what is done by Ministers to-day in respect of
themselves they may do to-morrow in respect of you. Remember that the Commission
now issued to enquire into these charges against Ministers is a warrant for the issue in
future of Commissions to enquire into offences against the law alleged against yourselves,
and that you may be called, out of the ordinary course of law, before a Court of Inquiry
created by the exercise of the prerogative alone ; that à robbery of the mails, for in-
^.
§PºECH AT TIONDON. 35
stance, may be tried by a Commission instead of the regular courts of law. The security
of the subject is, therefore, grievously impaired by the issue of this Commission. But
it is said that the recent Act authorized its issue. Not so. The Act, in the first place,
is framed not to anthorize the issue of a Commission, but to provide that when the Gov-
ernment, in the exercise of the prerogative, chooses to issue a Commission it may confer
powers as to Oaths on the Commissioners. The Act leaves the issue of the Commission
to the prerogative. Again, the general language of the Act, can never be extended to
subvert fundamental laws and principles, such as I have referred to—namely, that the
accused shall not nominate the tribunal; that offences against the law, cognizable by the
courts, shall not be taken hold of by any tribunal created out of the ordinary course ;
that Commissions are only issued to inform Ministers on matters about which they re-
quire information, and that Commissions are not issued to try or interfere with State
offences or questions raised in and belonging to the House of Commons. I have very
shortly stated what, of course, is a dry legal question, but one which the intelligent peo-
ple of this country must, to some extent consider, inasmuch as the rights of every man
amongst us depend upon the true apprehension of the principles to which I have referred.
Then there are certain grave inconyeniences connected with this Commission. Wit.
nesses are entitled to refuse to answer criminating questions. The Commons have the
right, I believe, to compel such answers. At any rate, provision may be made for that ;
but since by this Act witnesses may refuse to say anything that tends to criminate
them, and since the offence charged is a criminal offence, it is competent for the chief
actors to decline before this Commission to answer many most material questions. There
are, indeed, many other objections to which for want of time I shall not refer. I am ex-
tremely averse to discussing the personnel of the Commission. It is always disagreeable
to say anything against those who are practically precluded from making a public answer,
and upon the whole I have determined at present to say only that I am unable to ac-
quiesce in the proposition that the Government having undertaken the invidious task of
naming their triers, have chosen men in whose decision the country can or ought to con-
fide. Some other day I may feel called on further to discuss this topic ; I abstain at
present, only adding that it was not in human nature that the accused should, if guilty,
act differently in the choice of their judges. Upon the whole, sir, I believe that my fel-
low members and myself who signed that representation to his Excellency, and announced
our view that intense dissatisfaction would be created if parliament were prorogued
without allowing it to provide machinery for the prosecution of the enquiry, must stand
by each other in defence of the Constitution. We must take the judgment of Parlia-
ment and the country upon the question, and therefore we must bide our time until
*
Parliament to Meet Early.
Parliament meets. An early meeting, you are aware, is promised. For that early meet-
ing the faith of the Crown is pledged, and at that meeting we shall assert the princi-
ples which I have been endeavoring feebly to expound this night. We shall say what
we should have said earlier had the opportunity been given us to criticise the proposal
before the act was committed, and we shall look to the people to sustain us in fighting
the people's battle. Am I heard, or shall my utterances be read by any man who calls
himself Conservative 2 Let me ask him to step to the front with me to conserve the
Constitution, to conserve those ancient principles of British liberty which he can agree
with me are not newfangled, but are as venerable as they are just. Is it for anyone who
calls himself a Conservative to sanction, or to do ought but condemn this new and dan-
gerous course, sweeping away every well settled principle upon which the Constitution
rests 7 I want to know what is his function in this country, if it be not to stand up for
those good things which are established. Sometimes, I regret to say, it is deemed cause .
enough to stand up for an evil thing because it is established} and assuredly I hope to
36 MR. BLAKE'S
have the support of many Conservatives in the maintenance of th established good.
You may be told we are trifling; that although these principles are undeniable, and
these privileges unquestionable, we are not to scrutinize the means, because the end is
good. You may be asked to adopt the degrading doctrine, that “the end, justifles the
means.” You may be asked to say that because the object is investigation, which all
desire, therefore you should entirely overlook the means. And yet these gentlemen who
tell you that, with the same breath are prepared to denounce my friend Mr. Huntington
because they suspect that in the attainment of that good end, the truth, he has used some
unjustifiable means in getting evidence! But it is said the matter is a trifling one. Were
not the few shillings of ship-money levied on John Hampden a trifle : It would have
been better, these time servers and followers of expediency will tell you, for him to have
paid the twenty shillings than to be vexed and harrassed with suits, and yet upon that
trifling issue were staked the liberties of England And his name is held in
everlasting remembrance by all worthy sons of England, because he refused to
pay that trifling sum, and put fortune, fame, life itself to the issue rather than desert
what was his country's cause. Was it not a trifling matter to Sir John Eliot that he
should write a humble letter to the King, saying, “I submit myself.” Seeing that
Parliament had been dissolved, that the evil had been done, that whatever was wrong and
tyrannical had been accomplished, was it a very important matter that he should say, “I
regret my error,” and so escape for a season, biding the good time when Parliament
should be called again Time servers would tell you Sir John Eliot ought to have so
acted. They would belittle the martyr's fame ; they would say his sufferings should fall
upon his own stubborn head, that sympathy for him was entirely misplaced, that there was
something utterly absurd in the man not yielding for the time and waiting until Parliament
should redress his wrong. No, Sir ; no, Sir; these are doctrines we cannot afford to hear
broached without denouncing them. We cannot permit the most trifling encroachment
upon principles, the inviolable preservation of which is our only security for liberty. Let
us agree that no object can justify our parting with the least of the securities of liberty
Let us agree that there is, as all history teaches, danger, the greatest danger, in an evil
precedent. I have seen it in my own brief experience. I never saw a bad Act of Parliament
passed but that it was urged, and often successfully, as a precedent for a very much worse
act next session. Such is the invariable result. Give the precedent, and it is always
stretched and stretched in the wrong direction. The trifle of to-day becomes the monster
of to-morrow. The cloud no bigger than a man's hand in the morning may become by
night a deluge sweeping away the very landmarks of freedom. And let me say that you but
ill repay the sufferings which that noble man, a part of whose story I have told, endured for
you and your children, as he tells in the letter which I could not read, nor you hear without
emotion, when you permit one jot or one tittle of the sacred principles which his blood has
sanctified, which his martyrdom has enshrined, and which form to-day the corner stone of
British liberty, to be impugned or infringed by even the highest and mightiest with the
best and purest intentions, far, far less by incriminated Ministers, seeking through stratagem
to escape from justice No situation is so secure but that the people's negligence may
make it dangerous. No situation is so desperate but that the people's vigilance may work
out their salvation. Upon that vigilance depends the preservation of your liberties to-day.
That vigilance I expect you to exercise. Awake, then, to the magnitude of the issue. The
feeling of the people will be the feeling of Parliament next session. What you, what the
intelligent people of Canada shall have determined in the meetings out of Parliament, is
what Parliament itself will shortly do. Awake, I say again, to the issue ! Let your voice
and weight be felt. By one stern lesson teach a corrupt and audacious Ministry that they
may not, unpunished, trifle with your dearest rights; and plant once more on foundations
broad and deep, on the foundations of public virtue and constitutional liberty, the fair fabric
which your rulers are now shaking to its base.
SPEECH IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. 37
INUMBER THREE.
IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS,
ON 3rd AND 4TH NOW., 1873, IN REPLY TO SIR JOHN A. MACDONALD.
-
OTTAwa, Nov. 3.
The honorable gentleman who has just addressed the House for more than five hours,
has in a long professional, and Parliamentary experience learned how best to conduct a
weak case. When the logic and the facts of the case are with him, when he is on the side
of honesty and right, no man knows better than himself the importance of marshalling all
the facts in their order, of abandoning all irrelveant topics, of putting all else aside, and
of confining the House closely to the question which is for its decision; and no man is
better aware than himself that when the case is different, as this is, when it is of such a
character that it cannot bear investigation and argument fails, the only course open is to
reverse that mode of procedure, to confuse the argument, to bring in irrelevant and side
issues, to touch a tender part now for a moment, then pass away from it, and revert to it
again, with no connected strain, with no attempt at a perspicuous and plain state-
ment, no attempt to demonstrate that which is impossible of demonstration, but with
ample use of that other artifice which at the close of a long career, copying from his
early professional experience, he has brought into prominence to-night, namely, to abuse
the other side. Sir, the interests which are at stake on this occasion are too momen-
tous, the circumstances are too grave to permit us for one moment to waste our time
by any discussion which is not fairly relevant to these matters, by any assertions which are
not for the immediate determination of this House As to the concluding words of the hon.
gentleman, as to those things upon which he said he now threw himself for judgment—the
feeling and intelligent decision of the House, of the country, and of posterity, and last and
highest, on that mens conscia rect; which he says he possesses, my short answer is this: that
when the hon. gentleman was called upon to vindicate before the people his policy; when
he was called upon by reason and argument to sustain his course, and to prove his title to
the confidence of his country, it was not to these high and elevating sentiments he appealed;
it was not upon the intelligent judgment of the people he relied, but it was upon Sir Hugh
Allan’s money, obtained by the sale of those rights of the Canadian people, which he held
in trust. That was the influence which he then used to sway the public mind. What have
\ No Irrelevant Issues.
we to do in this great discussion with the question whether a letter has been stolen, whether
a telegram has been bought, whether McMullen sold or gave the letters of Sir Hugh Allan:
Have these considerations anything to do with the question whether the hon.
gentleman acted in a manner unworthy of his position, and betrayed the trust
confided to him 2 These suggestions of his are interpolated into this debate
most unfairly, and unjustly, and they are excusable only from the pitiable con-
dition in which the hon. gentleman this night stands. But for that pitiable condition,
unscrupulous as he has always shown himself in debate, I believe that even he
would have abstained from resorting to these arguments. If the hon. gentleman has any
charge to make against any member of the House, of having been guilty of acts unworthy
of a member of this House, I suppose that at the proper time he will formulate that charge. I
do not doubt that this House will be disposed to deal with that charge, and I do not doubt
that even-handed justice will be meted out to any man whom he may establish to have
acted in a manner unworthy of a member of this House ; but what have we to do to-night
with the question whether the hon. gentleman will, or will not formulate such charges, or
can, or cannot establish them 2 We are dealing to-night with men whom we impeach, not
38 MR. BLAKE's
merely as accused, but as established criminals. And it is the plea of the prisoner at the bar,
that his accuser has been guilty of some other crime, a plea which he says he can prove
some other time if you acquit him now of the charge against himself! Let him, or those
who succeed him in Parliament, at some future time, as soon as he pleases after these
charges have been disposed of, redeem his pledges this night given, and put these matters,
or such of them as may be deemed proper, to trial, but let this controversy be disembar-
rassed of them. Whatever be the fate of his charges, they cannot effect one vote to be
given to-night. They cannot effect the consideration of that question which my hon. friend
from Lambton has tendered for the judgment of this House, and which it is proposed to
supersede by the amendment of the hon. member for Pictou. The question is, compara-
tively speaking, a short, and simple one. I thought, till I heard the hon. gentleman's
speech, that it was large enough—that it embraced topics which might well be the subject
matter of a considerable amount of discussion ; but it is short, simple, and contracted
within narrow limits, when you compare it with the vast range of irrelevant topics which
Points at ISSue.
the hon. gentleman has chosen to bring into the diecussion. What are the two points
really in issue 2 First, whether the conduct of the Government, in the course of the in-
vestigation, merits the censure of the House ; and, secondly, whether the conduct of the
Government, as disclosed in the evidence, merits the censure of the House. What have
we to do with the cries which the hon. gentleman says we raised against him 2 What
have we to do with the question of the Nova Scotia subsidy ? What have we to do with
the question of the Washington Treaty ? What have we to do with the question of the
Manitoba Act, or with the attitude of the Opposition at the period of the union of British
Columbia, upon the subject of the Pacific Railway ? These matters do in no wise assist
the House to come to the conclusions to which the hon. gentleman invites it to come, on
the issues joined between him and his accusers. The honourable gentleman commenced
his speech by an allusion to the question of the prorogation ; and he alleged that the
prerogative and the will of the people could no longer be opposed to each
other; that the prerogative was a part of the liberty of the people ; and he
insisted that the question of constitutionality could not subsist for a moment.
Whatever opinion I hold as to the duty of His Excellency under the advice tendered
to him, that question is not raised in this debate. I limit myself to what is raised in the de-
bate, and that is the action of His Excellency's Ministers, the advice they tendered and the
course they pursued. It is all very well to tellusthat the prerogativeis of less importancethanit
once was. It is all very well to tell us it can no longer accomplish, in the hands of the
Crown, what once it could accomplish. But it makes no difference to a free people whether
their rights be invaded by the Crown, or by the Cabinet. What is material to them is to
know that their rights are not invaded from any quarter, to secure them against invasion
from all quarters, and to guard against that new danger of increased, and increasing power
of the executive, which presents itselſ in these modern days. This is no fantasy of mine. “
You will find the best writers upon constitutional topics, referring to the subject Yon
will find that most fair, and impartial, and candid writer, Hallam, adverting to the danger
o, the increase, by insidious degrees, of the executive power of the Cabinet, and to the
duty of the people to guard against that increase. It is very well to say to the people
they are all-powerful, but if we hand over to the Cabinet powers—inordinate powers, not
susceptible of being kept under proper control—we may be deprived of that very expres-
- The Prerogative Abused.
sion of popular will which is necessary in order to popular Goverament. The
hon. gentleman says the prerogative, under the advice of responsible Ministers,
can never be used against the people. We allege that the prerogative under the
advice of Ministers has been used against the people. We allege that it has been used in
*s.
SPEECH IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. 39
order to prevent the action of the people's representatives. We allege that it has
been used in order to withdraw from the cognizance of those representatives the great cause
which was pending between the government and their accusers. We allege that in this
very case you find an instance of the evil which the hon. gentleman ridicules as a fantasy
of the imagination, and full proof of the necessity of preserving all the forms and principles
of the Constitution, every security for free government, and every right of the people which
our ancestors have handed down to us. Sir, the most dangerous doctrine to which a Par-
liament can assent, is the doctrine that it should part with some portion of its ancient
liberties, immunities, and privileges. We ought to be most jealous with reference to each
one of these. We ought to find not merely that there does not exist some present obvious
danger from the abandonment, but also, that their exists no possibility of future danger
from their abandonment. And even if we cannot see at the moment any such danger, we
must find some preponderating cause for our action before we give up one of those safe-
guards which have been handed down to us, and which it is our duty to transmit unim-
paired to posterity. The hon. gentleman has argued this question of the prorogation
historically; he has told us that a formal announcement of prorogation was made as from the
Crown. I did not understand any such announcement. No such announcement was in
words made. I have heard the hon. gentleman announce the intentions of the Crown be-
fore to-day upon such topics. I have heard him announce what his advice to the Crown
would be, and what he had been authorized by the Crown to state upon such topics.
Though on this occasion he says there was a formal announcement from the Crown, I say
the House did not so understand it. I say more ; it is contradicted by the facts ; if His
Excellency had formally, through the First Minister, anterior to adjournment, communi-
cated his intention to prorogue at the opening of the House, on the 13th of August, would
there have been a second communication to this Chamber, through you, Mr. Speaker, to
the same effect 2 And yet we were informed by you, on the 13th of August, that you had
that day received a communication from His Excellency that it was his intention then to pro-
rogue the House. No, sir, the whole idea of prorogation on the 13th of August, was based
of necessity upon one theory of the result of the labors of the Committee, namely, that
those labors would be effectmally prosecuted, and that they would result in a verdict of
acquittal. I do not believe that the hon. gentleman will seriously argue that he intended
that this House, provided the evidence before the Committee established the charges, should
waittill next spring before it pronounced judgment upon the case; that this Houseshould allow
Ministers to maintain the control of the Government of this country after they had been clearly
proved to have been unworthy of the trust committed to them. I believe that such a proposal
would not have been assented to by the House, and whatever was said, must, from the
necessity of the case, be taken to have been said under the conditions I have named.
The hon. gentleman himself would not have dared to say to this House, “though the
evidence taken before the Committee proves my guilt, I will still insist that Parliament
shall not meet for business on the 13th of August ; I will still retain power till February
or March next.” He would not have dared to say that ; but in the ostentatious assump-
tion of innocence which he put forward, he chose to affirm that nothing whatever could
be proved; that the result of the Committee would be to establish his innocence, and,
No Agreement to Prorogue.
therefore, there would be nothing for the House to do. Now, Sir, that it was impossible
that the arrangement, which the hon. gentleman says, was finally and definitely agreed
upon, should, under all circumstances,’ and under all contingencies, remain as the settled
state of things, is shown by our being here this night, discussing this question, because a
contingency did arise, which rendered it quite impossible to adhere to this programme of
the hon, gentleman, which he declares to have been settled and final. His programme
was that Parliament should not meet till February next. He had no idea of a fall sitting,
40 MR. BLAKE's
te
and is it not just as much a breach of faith for every member to be summoned here on the
23rd of October, as it would have been to be summoned for business on the 13th of August 4
We are here, after all, at a time when, according to the programme, We should not have been
here ; but the hon. gentleman's fixtures having all hinged on the contingency I have
mentioned, and that contingency not having happened, the Committee not having been
able to do anything, we are here to-day, which, according to the hon. gentleman's view, is
a breach of faith. It seems to me that under the circumstances we have to consider this
prorogation not by itself alone, but as a means to an end. It did obviously accomplish one
thing. On the 21st of July, an authorized Ministerial announcement was made that at the
earliest moment this matter would be submitted to a tribunal competent to take evidence
under oath. It is clear, also, that so long as the Committee Was in existence, (and its
existence was contemporaneous with the existence of that session of Parliament,) Ministers
themselves thought it not fit to interfere with the Committee, abortive though it was, by
issuing the Commission which was, we may fairly assume, the tribunal in contemplation by
them upon the 21st July. We find so far back as this the design to withdraw from Parlia-
ment, and to bring before another tribunal this investigation. Now, it was perfectly
obvious that the effect of prorogation, would be to destroy the the enquiry, to destroy the
powers of the Committee, and that whatever had to be done would have to be recommenced.
Under our Constitution, owing to a difference in its forms, different results arose from those
which would have arisen in Englaud ; and so it was that Ministers had deliberately deter-
mined to avail themselves of that difference of form, and by prorogation to remove from
Parliament and to assume to themselves the cognizance of their own impeach-
ment. And yet we are told that there is no danger in prerogative. º
OTTAwa, Nov. 4.
Mr. BLAKE resumed the debate on the Address as follows: Last night I pointed out
that a great number of the topics introduced by the First Minister of the Crown were wholly
irrelevant to the serious question engaging our attention. The House and the hon. gentle-
man know that it is not my custom to shrink from a fair discussion of any public question
at any time or at any place, or before audiences from any of the Provinces whom the hon.
gentleman seeks to array against me, and , whose champion he assumed to be last
night. I am perfectly prepared to state, and I believe satisfactorily to vindicate, as
in the highest interests of the Canadian people, the motives by which I was actuated in
consenting to the policy which my friends have pursued on public questions to which he
has referred. But, Sir, it is not fit that we should interfere with this debate by these con-
siderations, and I feel myself the less bound to enter into the discussion of the electoral
battle, because it is known I was not present during the campaign. I was surprised to learn
the course it took, according to the view of the hon, gentleman opposite. All I can say is
that, from theinformation I have received, I am led to believe the First Minfster's recollection
is inaccurate as to the points agitated in the west, and I believe if anything was said about
Nova Scotia, that it was an attack upon my honorable friend from Lambton, by the hon. gentle-
man himself, because he alleged that my hon, friend had brought about an exorbitant grant to
that Province for her Provincial building. But I not choose now to enter into the question
whether the general conductof the Government has been prudent or imprudent. The conduct
of the Government in the past has no more to do with protecting them against this charge than
their other misdeeds can be made a ground for convicting them on this charge. It is to be
remembered that the complaint is one of breach of high public trust, and you must not for-
get that charges of this description can only arise against persons who have borne very
good characters. It is by means of such characters that they procure the confidential
positions in which a betrayal of trust becomes possible ; and hon. gentlemen opposite hav-
ing thus, as they allege, by their previous good conduct obtained the opportunity of com-
SPEECH IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. 41
mitting a great public crime, now put forward that previous good conduct as a reason for
acquitting them of that erime. The embezzlement by a confidential clerk, or the betrayal
of a trust by a trustee, cannot be condoned by previous good conduct. At criminal trials,
witnesses are called to speak to the good character of the criminal, but they are merely
called to mitigate the sentence ; but upon this question the verdict of this House is asked,
guilty, or not guilty of conduct which merits the severe censure of this House. Upon that
issue evidence of good conduct is immaterial. It is material in one sense, indeed, t
because it involves a confession of guilt by appealing to these mitigating circumstances.
I will merely add a word as to the attack on the general policy of the Opposition. So,
Policy of the Opposition.
far from the Opposition being actuated by any sectional feeling, as has been alleged
against us in regard to our policy respecting the different Provinces, I believe it can be
demonstrated that fair play to all parts of this Dominion has been the groundwork of our
policy in the past, as it will be the groundwork of our policy in the future. That man is
as much a sectionalist who seeks to array Province against Province, by acts of partiality
which must be unjust, as the man who raises a cry against merely fancied injustice. If
the Opposition has complained of some things, it was because we thought them improper.
If we were wrong in that, let us be met by fair argument, without these miserable appeals
to local interest, these unpatriotic attempts to band whole Provinces together in hostile
array against the rest of the Dominion, which have disgraced hon. gentlemen opposite in
the past. Let it not be said that in this House any member, come from what Province
he may, is not to be free to argue questions of public policy, without encountering these
wretched attempts to rouse against him the local feelings, passions, and prejudices of
particular sections of the country. Now I return to those points bearing more or less on
the question before the House, on which the hon. gentleman dilated, some of which I
shall touch, but very lightly. In the first place, the hon. gentleman argued
that the motion of the member for Shefford was a motion of want of con-
fidence. I do not think that is very material, but his proofs do not
sustain the statement. They are threefold ; first cf all the hon. gentleman
read a statement from the Ottawa correspondent of The Globe and he announced that the
great party, which my hon. friend leads, was irrevocably bound, because The Globe cor-
respondent said, before it was known what the motion would be, and when the hon. gentle-
man himself expected quite a different motion, that it was supposed to be a motion of want
of confidence. That argument is so absurd that the mere statement of it is its sufficient
answer. Then the hon. gentleman turned to the member for Wentworth to whom he gave
the character of being a very honest man. Notwithstanding the hon. gentleman's praises.
I think my friend is fully entitled to that character; but I believe he does not set up for
the only honest man on this side of the House. My honorable friend from Wentworth did
say his opinion was that the motion was intended as a motion of want of confidence. I did
not so understand it, and I do not suppose that my honorable friend set up his views as
binding upon the whole party. Lastly, the hon. gentleman said the mode in which the
motion was originally intended to be made namely, by amendment to a motion to go into
Committee of Supply, indicated that it was a motion of want of confidence. That is not correct
in point of Parliamentary law, and there are to be found in the very same session two notable
instances contradicting the hon. gentleman's theory, in which amendments to go into Com-
mittee of Supply were carried, and were not treated by the hon. gentleman as motions of
want of confidence. Such motions are, therefore, not to be considered ex-necessitate as
votes of want of confidence. The hon. gentleman has been fond of using this argument,
and hence that excellent parliamentary weapon had in course of time been blunted, but its
edge had been restored by the hon, gentleman's consent last session. Well, Sir, what are
the reasons on the other hand 2 The nature of the motion itself is one which prevents it
42 MR. BLAKE's
from being called properly a motion of want of confidence. A motion for enquiry can
hardly be a motion of want of confidence. A charge is made; a charge of such gravity
as to demand an investigation, and the proposal to investigate only, not to adjudge, can-
not be a proposal that there is no confidence in the Administration. I quite admit that
the Administration can make it a motion of want of confidence as they can make any
other motion, even one of adjournment; but the motion itself, as projected by the mover,
cannot be considered one of want of confidence. Then the attitude of the member for
Shefford in making the motion, indicated it was not one of want of confidence. He made
no speech; he made, no attack upon the Ministry; he simply made his statement and
placed in your hands the motion based upon it. Then the attitude of Ministers them-
selves destroys their argument, because they themselves within a few days invited the
House to pass the motion they had at first rejected. It could not change its character
and be on the 2nd a vote of non-confidence, and on the 8th a vote consistent with the
Pressure on the Government.
etention of their seats by Ministers. Next the hon, gentleman alleged that no pressure
was put upon him to grant the Committee. Well, of course we accept the statement of
the hon, gentleman, but we must remember that this was a charge against the Govern-
ment, and it is established by the evidence brought forward last night in this House, that
several supporters of the Government considered the charges were a proper subject of
investigation, and informed members of the Government that was the last vote they would
receive from them unless the Committee was granted. By what intuition the hon, gen-
tleman became possessed of this fact, what bird carried it, what stone wall heard it—
boots not to consider; suffice it to say that pressure was put upon the Government, and
that the Government yielded to the pressure. Next the hon, gentleman stated that he
never dreamed that the Committee would proceed at once. I ask every candid man in
this House, except the hon. gentleman, whom I am obliged to except, though he is known
to be a particularly candid man, whether he ever dreamed of anything else, whether the
whole tone of the discussion, the zeal manifested for the passing of the Oaths Act; the con-
duct of the various proceedings which ensued subsequent to the appointment of the Com-
mittee, did not all point conclusively to an immediate commencement of its labors, and
their prolongation beyond the session only in case it should be found impossible to finish
them during the session ? The hon, gentleman was bound, if he thought that this Com-
mittee could not meet for business till after the return of those gentlemen, who he knew
were to be absent till June, to have said at once that the Committee could do nothing
until their return. He was bound to take the House into his confidence, and to have ex-
plained that he thought it impossible to get on at once; but there were many matters
with reference to which the hon, gentleman kept the House, and even his own supporters,
Those Damning Papers.
in the dark. All that time he had in his desk those damning papers—the letters of Sir
Hugh Allan, the contract between Sir Hugh Allan and his American associates—papers
which have disgraced the writer of them irredeemably throughout the world. And yet
the hon, gentleman never took his supporters into his confidence on this subject, and I
venture to say it was a surprise and a shock to many of them, apart from the other evi-
dences of their leader's guilt, when they found that before this charter was granted, while
nothing had been done that could not be undone, the hon, gentleman had received these
written records of the villainy that had been perpetrated by the man whom he afterwards
placed in the position of President of the Company. It was the duty of the hon, gentleman
to tell the House, which he was swaying with an iron rod, whither he was leading it, and
that the Committee could not meet till these gentlemen returned. But I shall prove by
facts beyond disputé that, whatever the hon, gentleman's secret intention was, his public
and avowed plan of action was that the Committee should proceed. The hon, gentleman
*
SPEECH IN THE HOUSE, OF COMMONS. 43
has told us that he knew the chances were infinitesimally small that these gentlemen
would return during the session, and yet he agreed to have the Oaths' Bill pushed through
the House, and he brought down His Excellency in the middle of the session to assent
to that Bill. To what end did he do this unusual thing, if the Oaths' Bill was not to be
used immediately afterwards f It is clear that, whatever may have been the hon. gentle-
man's secret thoughts, he was willing to lead this House to believe that immediate action
on the part of the Committee was desired and intended by him. But, when the Com-
mittee at length met for action, the hon gentleman applied for an adjournment, to which
Protestations Of Innocence.
the Committee agreed. That proposition was submitted to the House, and then for a
first time he delivered a speech in vindication of his conduct, in which he declared there
was not one jot or title of truth in this charge. He made a speech, in which I am sure
he fed every man on both sides of this House to believe that either he must be utterly
false, or my hon, friend for Shefford must have been utterly mistaken in bringing forward
this charge. He said there was no shadow of foundation for it; nothing whatever which
could have led to the preferring of such an accusation. These were the declarations of in-
nocence on the part of the hon. gentleman. Under these circumstances, and by virtue of
that denial (how candidit was, he having all those papers in his desk, and in his
guilty breast the knowledge of his crime, I leave to you to judge), he induced the House
to postpone the Committee to the 2nd of July. Inow come to to the Oaths’ Bill. It so
happened that I was not in the House during any of the discussions upon the subject of
the Oaths’ Bill. I was present when the Committee was moved for, on which occasion the
hon, gentleman made the statement that the evidénce should be taken under oath, for he
it was who first made the suggestion to take the evidence on oath. I thought it strange that
he should propose that the Committee should sit after prorogation without a king for a Bill
to authorize that procedure, and I thought also that if he desired to take evidence on
oath, he should introduce a Bill for that purpose; and I did on that occasion make those
suggestions. I am not about to discuss the question of the legality of the Oaths Bill, I
leave that to the hon, member for Cardwell, who has maintained it heretofore, and will
no doubt maintain it still against all comers from either side of the water. I have argued
this question before, and I argue it to-day upon other and higher grounds than the ques-
tion whether the Oaths Bill was intra or ultra vires. That is of minor consequence, be.
cause if we have not got the power we can easily obtain it; but the question of disallow-
ance, assuming the measure to be ultra vires, is one of the most serious questions that can
~ Tisailowa HC3 of Bilis.
be brought before this Parliament, The views of the First Minister upon this question of
disallowance have been made public. On the 8th of June, 1868, in a memorandum sub-
mitted to His Excellency, the First Minister used these words : —“Of late years Her
Majesty's Government has not as a general rule interfered with the legislation of colonies,
having representative institutions, and responsible Government, except in the cases
specially mentioned in the instructions to the Governor or in matters of Imperial and not
merely local interest.” That is the true rule, stated in the most moderate terms, as to the
"exercise of the power of disallowance. When you put to one side first all those matters
contained in the instructions to the Governor, and, secondly, all matters of Imperial, as
distinguished from local concern, you have exhausted all the subjects of disallowance;
and yet in this the greatest self-governing community in dependence upon the British
Crown,in which the principle of self-government was first established, and is supposed to
be furthest advanced; in which we have exhibited, in a very complicated if not a very
perfect shape, the imperium in imperio; in which, of all others, we ought to preserve as far
as possible, in the interests of the Empire and in the interests of the connection, those
well-settled rules as to non-interference by England in purely domestic matters, we
4 * *
44 MR. BLAKE's
find that those wholesome and necessary rules have been forgotten and that this disallow-
ance has taken place. But can we blame the Imperial Government in the face of the
facts which have been divulged by the papers just brought down 2 No, Sir, we cannot,
and why Because the First Minister of this country, betraying his duty to his country,
expressly invited the interference of Her Majesty's Government. So far from
suggesting, as he ought to have suggested, to His Excellency that the Act was one of do-
mestic import solely, with which England should not meddle, the hon, gentleman says this:
—“The undersigned, to whom has been referred by Your Excellency the Bill passed during
the present session, has come to the conclusion, although not without doubt, that this
Bill is not within the competency or jurisdiction of the Canadian Parliament, and that the
attention of Her Majesty's Government should be called to its provisions and to the doubt
that eacists with respect to its validity" The intimation of the hon gentleman, promptly acted
upon by the law officers of Her Majesty's Government, was in direct contradiction to the
principle laid down by himself, that Eſer Majesty's Government should not interfere in
our domestic legislation, but leave us to settle our domestic troubles by our own machin-
He must Bear the Burden.
ery. In ignorance of this dispatch, I did, on a recent occasion, blame the Imperial
Government for departing from what I stated to be a well settled rule. I am free to
admit that the burden has been largely shifted, and now lies chiefly upon the shoulders
of the First Minister of this conntry. I observed, Sir, at the time, that the proclamation
issued on the 1st day of July was not accompanied by the certificate which it is provided
by the Act shall accompany it. And I confess I did not suppose the hon, gentleman
would have been guilty of the act which from these papers it now appears he has com-
mitted, I supposed it was by some slip that it happened. The occasion was urgent, it
was a public holiday, there were various things to be done, and I supposed that the cer-
tificate of Lord Kimberley, which is required to be appended to the proclamation, had
merely been omitted by mistake; but by the papers brought down,it appears that the Act
was not ripe for disallowance at the time; it appears the certificate was signed
and sealed in England upon the 1st of July, the same day upon which the proclamation
was issued in Canada making public the disallowance. Now, Sir, the law is that
in order to disallowance the proclamation or message of the Governor must be
accompanied by a certificate of the Secretary of State ; and until receipt of such a
certificate no proclamation could lawfully be made. But it now appears that the hon.
gentleman caused the proclamation of disallowance to be issued illegally upon that day,
in order to stop the proceedings of the Committee, and to carry out the scheme of dis-
allowance which this memorandum shows he contemplated from the commencement.
Sir, upon a telegraphic communication to the effect that the Act was disallowed, he
misled His Excellency into a violation of the law, by proclaiming the disallowance at a
time when His Excellency was physically incapable of performing that Act, because he
had not yet received the requisite certificate of the Secretary of State. Under
these circumstances the hon, gentleman should not have advised this proclamation. He
should have waited until the certificate which the law requires had arrived. The Com
mittee could then have proceeded with and probably finished their labors, because, till
the legal proclamation of its disallowance, the validity of the Act was not affected by
the English Order in Council. The object of the hon. gentleman, however, was not thus
to be accomplished. To meet his views it was necessary that the disallowance should be
proclaimed, and the proceedings of the Committee stayed. The hon. gentleman alleges
The Lord Chancellor of England.
that this disallowance was the act of the Lord Chancellor of England, and he presses this
House with the weight of that great authority. As I said before, I make him a present
SPEECH IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. 45
of the propositiofi that the Act is ultra vires of the powers of this Parliament,
and I leave to the honorable member for Cardwell, who introduced the
Bill, to establish to the House as he established before, in spite of the exertions of his
leader, that the Bill is not beyond our jurisdiction. I assume for the purpose of argument
that the Bill was ultra vires, and have put before the House only the constitutional ques-
tion whether, the fact that it was ultra vires being admitted, it was fit that it should be
disallowed. The legal opinion of the Lord Chancellor is therefore not material to my ar-
gument. I am aware that the hon, gentleman is gazetted, although not yet sworn, a
member of Her Majesty's Privy Council, and he probably knows more than I do of what
takes place in that Council, and perhaps he knows that the Lord Chancellor givestoevery
order of Council his personal consideration and sanction. I was very much surprised to
hear it, and 1 do not think that the honorable gentleman will allege seriously that it is
the Lord Chancellor's duty to consider the validity or legality of every Order in Council.
In this case, as is quite apparent upon the face of the despatch, the Lord Chancellor was
not of the Council when the Act was disallowed, Considering the circumstances, consid-
sidering that it was presented and disposed of on the 26th, and the result telegraphed on
the 27th of June, I have a notion that the Lord Chancellor heard of the matter for the first
time when that little breeze blew from this to the other side of the water; but it is of no con-
sequence. I decline, in matters cf importance to the good Government of this country alone,
with reference to our domestic affairs, to be bound by the extra judicial opinion of the Lord
Chancellor of Effgland, or any other law officers of that country. The question is, whether,
according to the well settled principles which regulate the conduct of the Imperial author-
ities in matters relating to the internal economy of self-governing Colonies, the aot being
wltra vires, our Minister acted worthily or unworthily in suggesting the course which was
taken. That question we must settle for ourselves, and I do not doubt we shall settle it
The Royal Commission.
well. Sir, I do not propose to add anything to the few words I said last night upon the
subject of prorogation, but I propose to deal shortly with the question of the Commission.
The hon, gentleman has said that he does not think himself bound to argue the propriety
of the Commission, because we use some of the papers which have been laid before us in
in that eonnection. Sir, this might answer in a nisi priws court, but not in this High
Court of Parliament. Confessions solemnly made and signed by the parties, docu-
ments submitted to this House, if they appear to be genuine, or be admitted by the parties,
may be used as the fonndations for judgment, although we dispute the process by which
these papers saw the light. Although we dispute the legality of the Court by which
these documents were evolved, we can stil judge npon the facts which they contain, and
condemn, upon the results of their own illegal tribunal, the men who have been guilty of
the crime of constituting it, and of the crime which the evidence taken before it discloses.
The hon. gentleman has given us a verbal account of some further opinions upon this
subject, and hs says that the law officers of the Crown in England have agreed that His
Excelleney's course was legal and constitutional. It may be so. We have
the hon, gentleman's word for it, but, Sir, we are not discussing the con-
stitntionality of His Excellency’s course. We are discussing the advice given
to His Excellency, and notwithstanding the arguments used by the hon, gentleman, not-
withstanding any opinions he may produce, our right to discuss and form our own judg-
ment on that advice is undisputed and undisputable. It is advice which, if permitted to
become a precedent, would destroy at one fell blow every vestige of our liberties. I
repudiate the notion that we have not the right to criticise, and criticise freely, the acts
of the Minister who advises, since everything done by the head of the Executive, within
the line of the Constitution, is beyond the sphere of criticism. For the proposition that
46 . MR. BLARE's
we have a right to criticise the acts of Ministers in advising the Crown mºn have fought
and died. It is a principle thoroughly well recegnized in our law, well, established in the
English Constitution; and I venture, for the credit of this country, to say that we here
repudiate the attempts which were made last night to shift responsibility from shoulders.
which ought to bear it, on to shoulders which cannot bear it without a conflict between the
- Law Officers not Infallible. - . . . .
people and the Crown. I have nothing to do with the opinion of the law cfficers of the Crown,
but if I had, I would say that, whatever respect I may have for the opinion of two emin-
ent English lawyers, who I do not suppose assume thorole ofinfallibility when they become
Attorney-General and Solicitor-General of England, finality is not to be attributed to that
opinion, even when given on a legal question; still less when it is given on a Constitu-
tional question of a large and complicated description, on which the opinion of Parlia-
mentarians, not of lawyers, is chiefly valuable. We hear too much in this country of
the opinion of the law officers of the Crown. It is a little too much, Sir, that
at this day of our history we are to be told that we are governed by the determination of
two gentlemen of the longrobe put down on paper three thousand miles away,
before whose opinion we are to be dumb, though we have not even enjoyed the humblest
suitor's right of appearing and arguing our cause before this august tribunal. When the
hon, gentleman says he has always been right according to the opinion of the law officers
of the Crown, he forgets one case out of the four or five controversies whºeh have arisen
—one case in which, by the way, English interests were concerned, when the English law
officers decided, with great promptitude, in favor of England and against the hon, gen.
tleman. I refer to the case of the Intercolonial Guarantee Loan, in which the law officers,
in strong terms, stated that there had been misapplication of the funds, and in a severe,
dispatch the Secretary ordered that it should not be continued. A reconsideration of
that decision was requested, but the law officers declined to modify in the least degree
their former opinion. The hon, gentleman does not ask them to reconsider their late
opinion, for an obvious reason. The opinion is now held out to the people of this country.
as something that must be accepted without remonstrance, I have no doubt that each of
us will be inclined to magnify the opinion of the law officers when it tends to
support our own view; and to lower it when opposed to our own view.
Such has been, and such no doubt will be the course of the hon, gentleman,
Weil, Sir, in this Parliament we must decide this Constitutional question for ourselves,
upon what we are able to ascertain for ourselves; upon what our learning and reading tells
us are the rights of British subjects, are the rights of a British Parliament. And I do
not doubt the statement of the hon, gentleman as to the opinion of the law officers of the
- Ancient Landmarks Violated.
Crown will be absolutely disregarded. What I said with reference to prorogatien I say
with reference to the Commission, that its appointment was a violation of the ancient
landmarks of the Constitution and of the Rights of Parliament, and an invasion of the
privileges of the peºple by an exercise of the prerogative, which ought not to be tolerated,
The hon, gentleman says there is no longer any danger from the exercise of the preroga-
tive—that the times of such danger are past, I say there is danger staring us in the face,
and the hon, gentleman's course has demonstrated the danger. I referred yesterday to
Hallan. Let me quote the observations of another writer, eminent in the cause of liberty.
Let me read you a few lines from the dedication to the English nation of the letters of
Junius, and you will see what he tells the people of that day. He says:—“Never suffer
any violation of your political Constitution, however minute thé instance may appear, to
pass by without a determined persevering resistance. One precedent makes another;
they soon accumulate and constitute law. What yesterday was fact to-day is doctrin •º

#
SPEECH IN THE IHOUSE, OF COMMONS. . 47
Examples are supposed to justify the most dangerous measures, and where they do not
suit exactly the defect is supplied by analogy,” These observations are applicable to the
case on hand, they teach us not to yield to the specious propositions of the First Minister,
and to regard our ancient rights jealously, and not part with a single one. The day may come
when we shall require them, The arguments of the Premier upon the prerogative and .
the rights of the Crown contrasted with the rights of Parliament are, as are many of his
arguments, entirely inconsistent. It is one of the weaknesses, if I may be pardoned in
so speaking of that astute person, that he is so impressed for the moraent with the import-
ance of making out by every argument, fallacious as well as fair, the point which he is
taking, that even in the same speech he utters statements diametrically opposed to each
other, and advances propositions utterly inconsistent, Last night we heard in his argu-
ments with regard to the several branches of the Legislature inconsistent propositions.
At one time he said there was no danger in the exercise of the prerogative, as it was
really the property of the Ministers controlled by the people; the next moment he said
what was quite different ; he stated, very strongly, that the Crown had its independent
right; that as an independent branch of the Legislature, the Crown had a right to issue this
Commission, and to send papers, and despatches to the House for which we could find no
one responsible. Thus we see the hon, gentleman utterly destroy, or dangerously magnify
prerogative, as suits the exigency of his case. Let us steer an even course between
these arguments, neither diminishing nor extending these prerogatives, Sir, I maintain
'that no word the hon, gentleman has said was sufficient to justify that invasion of the
rights of Parliament accomplished by the constitution of this Commission, based as it
s was on words spoken by my hon, friend in his place here, and constituted as it was for the
investigation of high crimes and misdemeanours here alleged against Ministers of the
Crown and members of this House, and so exclusively cognizable by this House, which
Reduced to Extramities.
had aſ ready undertaken the enquiry. What an instance of weakness was that, and to
what extremities was the hon, gentleman reduced, when he was forced strenuously,
earnestly—may I say theatrically 7–to argue that we had communicated the
charges of the hon. member for Shefford to the Crown, because we had sent for the assert
of the Crown a Bill to empower this House to examine witnesses under oath. That Bill
did not say anything about these charges, it was a general law ; but the hor. gentleman
said that he, a Minister of the Crown, had himself communicated these charges to His
Excellency in order to induce him to do what he knew was a futile thing—give his
assent to the Bill in the middle of the session. I know of no authorization given to the
hon, gentleman to inform. His Excellen y of what was passing in this Chamber. I say it
was the height of audacity, and an insult to this Chamber, to tell us by way of excuse
that by word, act, or deed he had assumed to violate, infringe or waive any one of our
privileges. The*Minister, if he made that communication, made it on his own responsi-
bility, and is guilty of a crime which will not fortify him, but weaken his position before
the Chamber, before which he is on trial. The hon, gentleman has failed—utterly failed
—to produce a precedent for such a Commission as this. The hon, gentleman brought
forward on a former occasion the Ceylon Commission. That precedent, however, no
f No Precedent.
longer does duty. It has been exploded, but he brings forward another. He referred
the other day to the Megaera Commission, but he knew that case had no application, so
in his defence he drops that too, but he falls upon one single precedent, on which alone
he now rests himself—I mean the Melville case. This was a Parliamentary
Commission, and not a Royal Commission, to enquire into abuses with reference
to the navy which had been prevalent for some time. It was established, not as a Royal
Commission, not upon address, but by Bill, in which Bill the Commissioners were named.
48 MR. BLAKE's
Aº
It was the actinot of the Crown, but of the Parliament. And this, forsooth, is seriously brought
forward as the solitary, the nearest precedent for this Commission; for a Royal Commis-
sion not sanctioned by the House, not asked for by the House, and disapproved of by the
House ! The production of such a precedent is the clearest and -strongest proof that
British history furnishes no authority for the hon, gentleman's course. He, however,
said that the Crown, as a branch of the Legislature, had a right to exercise the prerogative
in this way. He also said there was nothing in these charges to prevent the Senate from
having a Committee to investigate the facts. Certainly not, if the Committee were founded
on information which came properly within the cognizance of the Senate; but there
is no authority for the Senate taking up my hon, friend's charge, and upon it
founding a Committee, nor is there any authority for the Crown taking up my hon.
friend's charge and upon it founding a Commission. Did the hon, gentleman tell us
in the speech which he advised his Excellency to deliver on the 13th of August that he
was advising the issue of a Commission to enquire into the charges. No sir! The
Speech from the Throne stated that a Commission would be appointed to enquire into
“certain matters connected with the Pacific Railway.” For all we knew, the propoed
Commission might be perfectly legal; but when the Commission was issued, instead of
being of that character, it recited the motion of the hon, member for Shefford and the
order the House made upon that motion, and it directed an enquiry into the matter of
that resolution. The hon, gentleman ought to have presented to this House some better
argument, some better reason for the advice he gave. It has been said that the English
procedure for enquiry into corrupt practices justifies the Commission, but my hon, friend
from Durham has shown clearly that the English statute is an authority directly opposed
to the issue of this Commission. Sir, this Commission is also opposed to the funda-
Revolting Impropriety.
mental principles of justice. What was the revolting scene depicted by the Minister last
night He described himself as going about the country asking one judge and another
to become his judge in this great State trial. He asks one judge to come, who says, “I
cannot, but I recommend you to so and so.” The right hon, gentleman has caused
a Commission to be issued, to men named by himself to try himself. He has
made efforts to persuade us that the judges must be impartial, but such an account as he
gave last night ought to convince, and I hope has convinced, every man with a sense of
public duty, that the transaction is one which cannot be sustained. The hon.
gentleman is not fond of ancient precedents, and asks us to abandon them alto-
gether. He says with the new light we possess, we can safely abandon those old lamps
that have guided the footsteps of our forefathers for so long a period. The hon, gentle-
man is the leader of the Conservative party, and he enunciates these revolutionary doc-
trines; doctrines belonging to the new revolution against liberty which he seems disposed
to attempt. I, Sir, as a humble member of the Liberal party profess to be Conservative
of the Constitution of the country, the principles of British liberty, and the securities for
popular rights. I do desire to maintain these precedents, which ought to serve us for
guides in the future. Let me cite an instance which tends to show the fallacy of the hon.
gentleman's argument. He says that in old days the prerogative was dangerous because
it was used by the Crown for its own purposes. The most dangerous instances we have
known of the exercise of the prerogative in conflict with the interests of the people, have
been abuses of the prerogative by Ministers. In the time of Charles, the Duke of Buck-
ingham was impeached, and that impeachment had gone a certain distance when a Select
Committee, consisting of most eminent men in the House of Commons was ap-
pointed to prepare articles of charge. Some of the articles had been pre:
pared. The impeached Minister used, with regard to that Committee, as the *
hon. gentleman has used with regard to our Committee, the prerogative of the
SPEECH IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. 49
Crown to stay the "hand of the Commons. The impeached Minister induced
the Sovereign hurriedly to prorogue the Bouse and stay the hand of his accusers.
Sir, what happened immediately afterwards 2 Two days later, the Committee of the
Commons, who had been appointed to prepare the charges, received a message from the
law officer of the Crown, the Attorney-General, requesting their attendance. They at-
tended, and a request was made to them. Let me read you the answer these eminent
men returned. “Whereas, this morning, when we attended upon a commandment from
His Majesty, signed by yourself, you gave us an intimation of a purpose of His Majesty
to have a proceeding in the Star Chamber against the Duke of Buckingham, of such
matters as he stood charged with in Parliament, and to that end required to be instructed
what proofs we had to maintain the several charges prepared from the Commons to the
Lords against the said Duke, we, according to your advice, have considered thereof toge-
ther, and entreat you to take knowledge that whatsoever was done by usin that business
was done by the command of the House of Commons, and by their direction some proofs
were delivered to the Lords with the charges; but what other proofs the House would
have used according to the liberty reserved to themselves, either for the maintenance of
the charges or upon the reply, we neither know nor can we undertake to inform you.”
This is signed by Eliot, Pym, Glanville, Selden, and others whose names are household
words to lovers of English liberty. Not satisfied with that, the impeached Minister
advised the King to have Sir John Eliot taken before the Privy Council, where they
endeavored to extort answers with regard to the evidence. Sir John Eliot re-
sponded that what he had learned he learned only in the House for the service of that
House, and not except for its service would he make use of that information. So, foiled
in his purpose, a sham information was filed in the Star Chamber, a sham answer was
made by the Minister, a few witnesses were asked some sham questions and returned some
sham answers, when the proceedings dropped abortive, and there was an end to the attempt
made in those bad days by an impeached Minister to use the prerogative for the purpose
of transferring from the House the accusation made against himself. And yet the hon.
gentleman says, notwithstanding the objection to its constitutionality, not withstanding
the absence of precedent, notwithstanding the enormously grave objection that the Com-
mission was issued by the Minister himself, specially for the trial of himself, that this Com-
Burlesquing Inquiry.
mission is a legal one. The Commission is to be tried by its works. I believe that trial
will result in the verdict given formerly when that question came up before us. I think
the hon. member for Cardwell, during the last session, pointed out the difficulties that
would arise from a Commission being appointed. He expressed strong objections to it,
because it would remove this matter out of the hands of the Commons, and would be un-
satisfactory to the House and country, and a feeling of joy on learning that the right hon.
gentleman had yielded to the general view. I think, Sir, these observations have
been more than fortified by the result, and I expect to find that the hon, mem-
ber will not withdraw from his position. I expect to find him maintaining the inex-
pediency of any such transfer as has taken place. I maintain that there exists evidence
to show that this Commission is eminently unsatisfactory. Questions were put by the
Commissioners, and by the accused in a most improper manner, and I regret to say an
attempt has been made in the formal record of the evidence to conceal some of these im-
proprieties. I shall give but two instances, intending to pass on to more important matters.
A witness was called who had signed his name to a most compromising paper, a receipt
or $20,000. Instead of sifting the witness to the utmost, the Commissioner said to him,
“I suppose you signed it inadvertently,” and the witness adopted the suggestion and
accepted the means of escape which the Commissioner gave him. Although the news-
papers gave this question and answer, the question is omitted in the report before Parlia-
*-
50 - MR. BLAKE's
ment, and the answer appears as a voluntary expression of the witness. Again, a witness,
Mr. White, I think, after giving evidence relating to large expenditure in Montreal on
the part of the Opposition, had the question put to him by the first Minister—“You were
outbid in fact 7" and the answer was, “I cannot say we were outbid.” That question was
in a most objectionable form, but I find it omitted in the evidence placed on the table of
the House, which represents the answer as a voluntary statement of the witness. These
are samples from a large mass of similar improprieties which could be brought forward.
Besides, the work of the Commission was most perfunctory, many important subjects of
enquiry, lying on the surface, obvious to the most casual observer, were left untouched.
Of these omissions I will give an instance or two presently. But unsatisfactory, imper-
The Truth Will Out.
fect, and unfair as the work is, the opinion generally held in the country, and, I am satis.
fied, entertained by the majority of this House, is that the disclosures of the Commission
are such as call for the instant action of Parliament, are such as rendered it necessary for
the honor of the country that at the earliest moment at which the verdict of this House
could be taken on these declarations and confessions, the question should be submitted,
and the sense of the House obtained. In that spirit, in that view, was the motion of my
friend from Lambton made, yielding nothing, abandoning nothing, for it censures the
course as well as the disclosures, not recognizing the legality of the Commission; yet pro-
nouncing the case so strong, so plain, that we would have been recreant to our duty if
we had hesitated to place in your hands that motion. The Hon. gentleman, though
he rambled from one subject to another in his long discourse, and touched upon topics
wholly irrelevant, yet failed altogether to deal with what my hon, friend had pointed out
to this House as the real root of this matter. It was known in this country before the
late elections that bribery had assumed alarming proportions. It was acknowledged to be
on the increase. It had become a serious question with honest people in this country
how long popular government could be maintained, how long the people could be fairly
represented, if corruption were further continued. Those who were interested in the eleva-
tion of the people, in the purity of the people, and who desired to avoid that demoraliza-
tion and degradation which results from the sale of the franchise, had painfully considered
the question and had endeavored to bring about a beneficial change in the election law.
Such a change had been attempted in the old world with satisfactory results. The hon.
gentleman, however, so far from being an optimist, has become a pessimist. He believes
that this expenditure at elections always has existed and always will exist. He abandons
in despair the hope of seeing a fair and pure and honorable election, a true representa-
tion of the people according to their honest convictions. Sir, I do not abandon that hope.
If I did, I would despair of the Republic. But the truth is the hon, gentleman's tactics
were of the other description. We had tried the effect of the new law upon this matter.
It had been tried under his eyes. He had witnessed the effect of it in the Province of
Ontario. I say—and I can speak with as much knowledge as any other man in this
country upon this subject—I say that while the election in Ontario in 1867 was a very
corrupt one, the election in 1871 was the purest that had heen known for very many
years; and I say that this enormous change was produced by a proper election law, and
Keep Your Hands Clean.
by the adoption of a course which I have always recommended privately and in public,
which, I believe, is the only course upon which any party ought to succeed, and which I
hope is the only course upon which any party will succeed, namely, that having a law
which will enable you to punish bribery and corruption, you should keep your own hands.
altogether clean, and expend whatever money you choose to expend on elections, in.
searching out, repressing, and punishing corrupt acts on the part of your opponents.
Appeal to the courts, let your expenses be in the courts. Let the courts try the case, and
SPEECH IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. 5].
if the election of your opponent has not been pure, he will suffer, and you will gain in
consequence of this corruption. That was the principle upon which the election of 1871.
was carried, and that was the principle upon which the election of 1872 would have been.
run had the hon. gentleman permitted it. But, Sir, although the hon. gentleman
affirmed solemnly to this House, in 1872, that the Election Committees were satisfactory
tribunals, and though he induced this House so far to believe him as to leave the tria's of
elections to these Committees, yet the hon, gentleman in his evidence has told us—and
I know of no instance in which a public man has been s) completely and unequivocally
condemned out of his own mouth—he has told us in his evidence that corrupt and illegal
expenditure made unlawful by laws for which he is chiefly responsible, had (Xisted, and
would continue to exist, because of the utter ineffectiveness of the tribunal which he had
so perseveringly maintained. He said that the expenditure for hiring teams and for en-
tertainments was illegal, and yet was universal. According to the hop. gentienºa’s
reasoning, everybody did it, and as no one could expect that five metabars, each of whom
had breated and hired teams, would adjudge the seat of another m m'er void because he
had treated and hired teams, therefore these breaches of the law were never complaired .
of, and the statute remained inoperative. This is the hon, gentleman’s own statedient,
this is his own description of the tribunal which he imposed upon this country for the late
elections. Upon page 119 of the evidence, where or e of his colleagues was cross-examin-
ing him, the first Minister testifies that he believeſ the practice of hiring tea as and
treating was universal, and that he bad never kaown of any scri us contest before an
"Election Committee on the ground of such expenditure. The hon, gentleman tells us
that during his 40 years' experience in elections, during that 40 years of painful travel
through the wilderness, now so soon to end, he had feurud that tribunal so utterly ineffee-
tive, that the law upon the statute book which declared this system of treating and hiring
teams to be illegal, was a dead letter—was violated with impurity. And yet the Hon.
gentleman declined to change that tribunal, and declared it to be a good tribunal, by
refusing to us the trial by judges. How does it, may I ask, lie in the hon.
gentleman's mouth to say be was forced into a large expenditure, in these elec-
tions 2 If there was a large expenditure, he himself forced it. He caused it by
two means—first by insisting upon retaining the law which he acknowledged to
be utterly ineffective, aud secondly, by procuring these funds from Allan, which,
it is clear were only a part of the large election fund which the hon. gentleman
collected. I do not know anything about it. I was absent from the country at the
time. I spent no money, and I was elected in spite of the opposition of the hon, gentle-
man, and I defy him to defeat me by any expenditure of money; but if there was a large
expenditure, he is the last man in this country—he who arranged at an early period for
the expenditure—he is the last man to complain pitifully, and say, “I was
forced into spendin 3 money at elections which I would not otherwise have done.” Why,
An Inconsistent Arguinent.
Sir, the hon, gentleman, who, at the commencement of last session, was so impresse
A.
with the importance of keeping within the law—of not infringing in any way upon the
jurisdiction of Election Committees, that he would not permit this House to render jus-
tice to the people of West Peterboro’, that he told the House they must not even tempo-
rarily seat the man who had the majority of votes, but must allow the man who was
rejected by the people to sit and vote, because the only salvation of the House was to
* leave all these things to Election Committees—the hon, gentleman who then found such
virtue in an Election Committee when it was to give him a vote or two, now proposes in
his desperation that we should sweep away all Election Committees and make arrange:
ments for a new Commission of three judges, to be chosen by lot from the benches of all
the Provinces, who are to come from Halifax and Victoria, and to perambulate the land.
l
52 & MR. BLAKE's
from Dan to Beersheba, searching out all the iniquities that have taken place, and that we
should put the seats of all the members of this House at the disposal of those gentleman.
Personally I can have no objection to as many Commissions as the hon, gentleman pleases
to ask for, but I very much doubt whether some highly respectable gentlemen on the
other side are ardently desirous of such a Commission. I extremely doubt whether many
of these gentlemen feel grateful in their heart of hearts to the hon. gentleman for suggest-
ing such a scheme. Well, Sir, when he proposes it we shall discuss it. If there is to be
a Commission—if all the cases which have been disposed of by the Election Committees
are to be thrown open; if those in which no petitions have been presented are to be inves-
tigated; if those which are before Committees are to be withdrawn from their cognizance,
let us, at any rate, have a Commission that will do speedy justice. If this Commission is to
perambulate the land, Parliament will expire before half the constituencies are dealt with.
But, of course, the hon. gentleman will take the Ministerial members first, and will allow
the Opposition to point out the order of their going! This proposal, which is thrown out
as a bait to lead the House away from the topic, is simply another instance of the utter
absence of consistency which the hon, gentleman exhibits in his arguments to this House.
One moment the Election Committee is the palladium of our liberties; the next moment a
Commission of three men, to be chosen by ballot, is to supersede the Election Committee.
Sir, the hon. gentleman ought to have abstained from very shame from such an argument.
The hon. gentleman has said that, being pressed by the enormous expenditure on the part
of the Opposition, on the part of my friend from Lambton who seemed to have found some
mine of silver or of gold, the locality of which the hon gentleman did not point out, he was
driven to do what he would gladly have avoided. I have pointed out that the hon.
gentleman’s scheme was concocted when he refused a pure law for trying elections. I
proceed to point out that he knew that the consequences of that refusal were that money
would be spent, and he intended to spend the money. Before he and Sir George Cartier
left Ottawa, as appears by his own evidence—before this frightful expenditure on the part
of the Opposition had set in at all—before the writs were issued—before the alleged diffi-
culty had arisen, the hon, gentleman was already preparing to obtain means to corrupt
the people of this country. On page 104 of the evidence, he says:—“When Sir George
Cartier and I parted in Ottawa, he to go to Montreal, and I to go to Toronto, of course, as
leading members of the Government, we were anxious for the success of our Parliamentary
supporters at the elections, and I said to Sir George Cartier that the fiercest contest
would be in Ontario, where we might expect to receive all the opposition the Ontario
Government could give us and our friends at the polls. I said, ‘You must try and raise
such funds as you can to help us, as we are going to have the chief battle there.' I men-
tioned the names of a few friends to whom he might apply, Sir Hugh Allan among the
rest, and that he was interested in all these enterprises which the Government were
Looking to Sir Hugh. :
bringing forward.” At that early day, before there was any pretence for Opposition
expenditure, he had seen that, to carry Ontario, he would want more than his personal
presence, more than his personal influence, more than the patronage of his Government,
more than the arguments which in the open face of day a man may fairly address to his
fellow countrymen. Yes, it would require more It would require Sir Hugh Allan's
money But not Sir Hugh's alone. We hear hon, gentlemen say, “What
is $45,000 * Does the Minister pretend that was all he got from all sources for the
elections ? No, he acknowledges he got more. He says he got some friends in the West
and in various quarters to contribute moneys to an amount which is not in the slightest
degree indicated. This $45,000 is a part—a part only—of the election fund ; but it is a
portion obtained by an abuse of the trusts and powers of the Government, in
order to help out the political subscriptions of their friends. At that time
**
W
SPEECH IN THE EIOUSE OF COMMONS. 53
the Minister confesses he thought of Sir Hugh Allan. He knew that gentleman was
interested in the enterprises which the Government were forwarding, amongst
others the Pacific Railway, and he thought of Sir Hugh Allan; but both he and
Sir George Cartier knew that instead of Sir Hugh, in his present frame of mind,
being at all likely to “shell out, ” as he expressed it, that personage had established a
combination, and achieved a position which would enable him to ruin, and which he in-
tended to use for the purpose of ruining the Government of the day unless they should
yield to his terms. This great contractor, this powerful man, had raised himself-to such
a position that the confidence of a number of leading men and intending candidates
would be given or withheld from the Government as he should decide. At that moment
he was exercising his influence in an unfriendly spirit ; at that moment he was raising
a feeling of hostility against the Government, because they were not yielding to his views;
at that moment he was exciting discontent and suspicion, and sowing discord in the ranks
of their supporters, and was making his power felt, as the evidence shows. This friend
of the Government, as the hon. gentleman called him, was far from being a friend, but he
was willing and honest enough—if the word can be used in connection with his name in
any sense—honest enough to declare his willingness to sell his influence, to support the
Government which he was attempting to destroy, and to calm the tempest he had raised,
if he could only be secured in the object of his desires, and what that object was is easy
Allan’s Letters. - $:-
to be seen I am not going to investigate the subtle question how far Sir Hugh Allan's
letters are evidence in this case, but I think any man of common sense will agree with
me that letters written at the time, with perfect frankness, upon the subject of pending
transactions, are, where they are not distinctly contradicted or explained away, the best
evidence of what the facts were at the time the letters were written, infinitely better evi-
dence than is to be gathered long after from the lips of a man who confesses his failing
memory, and his changed views and inclinations. I quite admit that a hostile witness
may be brought to such a point as to establish the falsity of his letters, but if you want
to establish the falsity of his letters, you must not treat him in the tender
manner in which the Commissioners and the Government have treated
Sir Hugh Allan. You are bound to make him state wherein his letters
were false. With reference to every particular of which you fail to obtain a distinct
denial, you must take it for granted that the letter is true and cannot be denied. It is
utterly impossible for gentlemen to say, because Sir Hugh Allan speaks of inaccuracies
which apply to letters written in the confidence of private intercourse—as if he only told
the truth in public and regularly lied in private—it is utterly impossible with a general
phrase of that kind, to answer the stern demand of justice upon the man who comes for-
ward and insinuates that his letters were falsehoods. That stern demand requires,
however unpleasant it may be, that there must be an explicit denial. These letters bear
on them the marks of truth; there are, probably, some inaccuracies in them, but they
are not inaccuracies which affect their substantial truth; and as no one else feels disposed
to say a good word for Sir Hugh Allan, I will say I do not believe he was lying to his
partners in the gross manner stated by gentlemen opposite. But for the purpose of my
argument, the letters are not necessary. I am content with the sworn testimony. Well,
these gentlemen knew that-their frlend, Sir Hugh Allan, was raising an unfriendly feeling
towards them, that he held a great influence in his hands, sufficient, though he should spend
no money, to accomplish the failure or success of the Government. This great influence
was to be propitiated—Sir Hugh Allan was to be conciliated before Sir Geo. Cartier
could hope to get the money from him, and so the hon. gentleman endeavors to make
an arrangement between Sir Hugh and Mr. Macpherson. He says he met Mr. Macpher-
son in Kingston about the 26th of July, and after failing to make terms between the two
54 MR. ELAKE's *
he telegraphed to Sir Geo Cartier that he might assure Sir Hugh Allan that the
power of the Government will be exercised to secure to him the Presidency
What He Wanted.
of the Company. The hon, gentleman now says that Sir Hugh Ailan wanted
something more. It was this, and this only, that in case an amalgamation
should fail, the contract should by given to his Company instead of to a new Company.
That was the only further point he wanted, whereas the position of the leader of the
Government was that a new Company should in that event be formed. I need hardly tell
you that the purposes of Sir Hugh Allan might be quite as well answered by the forma-
tion of a new Company as by his own plan. What he wanted was the control of the
Company; and it would suit him just as well to control a new Company as the Canada
Pacific Company But it would have been inconvenient for the Gover ment to give any.
positive pledge that the control should be given to that identical Company which had
been set up as a Quebec Company as against an Oatario Company. In this particular
alone, comparatively unimportant, Sir Hugh Allan wanted more. He got more, I know
not exactly what, but something more, and here I come to a point on which I may fairly
say the Commission has performed its work in a perfunctory manner. On the 30th of July
Sir Bugh received two letters from Sir George Cartier, in the long letter it is expressly
stated, “I enclose you copies of telegrams received from Sir John A. Macdonald, and with
reference to their contents, I would say,” &c. The House will see that the plural is used.
The House will observe there was more than one telegram received from Sir John Mac-
donald bearing upon this subject, which it was necessary to communicate to Sir H. Allan
as part of the authority upon which action was being taken by Sir George Cartier, and yet
only one has been produced, nor is any question asked of the First Minister, or of Sir Hugh
Allan or of Mr. Abbott, each of whom could have told us what the other telegram was. What
are we to conjecture ? Are we to say, in the face of that palpable failure on the part of
the Commissioners to do their duty—in the face of that plain, palpable failure on the part
of the Ministers to make a full unreserved statement of everything, are we to say that the
bottom of this matter has yet been reached ? Are we to say, as the hon. gentleman has
contended, that a favorable inference is to be drawn, though an important telegram has
Failure of Justice,
.been concealed? Mark another failure of justice. Let me draw your attention to the piti-
ful attempt which was made to explain two words in the shorter letter. The words of that
letter were, “any amount which you or yoãr Company shall advance shall be recouped.”
The pitiful attempt was made by Sir Hugh Allan, in his evidence, to suggest certain ex-
planations, without being able to deny what the true meaning of the words “your Com-
pany” was. The Minister of Justice, who knew that the original draft of that letter was
drawn, that the copy produced before the Commissioners was written by Mr. Abbott, who
is a sound lawyer and knows the use of language and the meaning of every sentence and
every word, yet did not ask Mr. Abbott a single question on this point. Nor did the
Commissioners. They enquired of Sir ſiugh, who could not explain it; they say nothing
to Mr. Abbott, who could ! Can you doubt the reason 7 It was because they knew per-
fectly well that Mr. Abbott must answer—“the Pacific Railway Company.” But, Sir,
the answer is demonstrated upon the face of the letters themselves. These two letters
were prepared at the same time by the same person ; they had reference to the
same transaction; a phrase is used in the one, and that identical phrase is used in the other
Nor is there any law of evidence better known to legal gentleman or better recog-
nized by intelligent men, than that the same phrase used in different
parts of a correspondence-at the same time, upon the same transaction,
means the same thing. In the letter of Sir George Cartier to Sir Hugh,
Allan, of the 30%h July, we find the words, “Your Company,” occur thus-—“Dear Sir".
SPEECH IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. - - 55
Hugh, I enclose you copies of telegrams received from Sir John A. Macdonald, at d with
reference to their contents I would say that in my opinion the Governor in Council will
approve of the amalgamation of your Company with the Interoceanic Company, under the
name of the Canadian Pacific Railway.” And then he goes on to speak of the constitu-
tion of the Board, the powers of the Company, and so on. Sir, in the other letter written
by Sir George on the same day, we find that identical phrase occurring, in refer.
ence to the money, thus:--‘‘Dear Sir Hugh, the friends of the Government will expect to
be assisted with funds in the coming elections, and any amount you or your C. mpany
shall advance for that purpose shall be recouped to you.” But of course the two Compa.
nies referred to in these two letters, written and signed at the same time, were not the
same ! I do not know what Company was meant We are not told in the evidence what
Company was meant, but it cannot mean “that Company.” Why, Sir, if it were made
to mean that, it would condemn the Ministry, and this is a conclusive argument against
such a construction! The whole evidence upon the subject of these two letters demon-
strates that they were one transaction. A conference took place between Sir High
Allan and Sir George Cartier, by appointment. These very telegrams were produced.
We are not told how they were produced; but they were produced, and they formed the
subject of discussion. Sir Hugh Allan wanted something more definite, and Sir George
Cartier was willing to give him his own assurance for something more definite. The
wily contractor understood that he was obtaining the sanction of the First Minister for
all that was in the telegrams, and the assurance of Cartier for something more ; and after
discussing what the terms should be, he suggested their reduction to writin g, and it was
arranged that the process of so reducing them should take place at a subsequent meeting,
meantime that a draft should be made, and the transaction afterwards completed. Sir,
at that first interview, Sir George Cartier brought up the subject of money to help at the
elections. Before he put his hand to the fatal bond ; before that bond was written ; before
he surrendered his liberty of action; while yet his Government and himself remained
in a position in which they could give even-handed justice with regard to the award of this
-contract ; while yet an unfavorable answer might have crushed the hopes of the contrac.
tor, and a favorable answer was necessary to his success, Sir George said, “Dón't you
#
*
*: 'Alian’s Influenc3.
intend to help us in the elections?” Now, Sir, we have heard of Sir Hugh Allan's grea;
influence, what a powerful man he was. How did he conjecture what was wanted?
Did he say, “Oh, yes, I will exert my influence for you. It is true I have been exciting
the country against you, but I will soothe all that down. I will tell my friends you in-
tend doing what is right, and I will thus make them your friends.” Was that what he
said 2 No, Sir, not that, but something quite different. It was—“How much " It ap-
pears from the evidence of Mr. Abbots—which, under the circumstances, I am disposed
to accept, without withdrawing the compliments I have paid to Sir Hugh Allar,
as the more credible, that no sum was named ; in fact, I suppose it
was to be just as much as was necessary to corrupt the country sufficiently
to enable the Government to fulfil their bargain. According to Mr. Abbott’s evidence,
all that was said about the money was that the arrangement as to it should be put in writ-
ing, and Sir George said if Mr. Abbott drew out the paper it would be signed, and the
whole matter— mark it was all one matter—could be completed. Then those two worthies
... go down to their den of iniquity to concoct their papers. There both the letters are drai ted,
and they return to Sir George Cartier together. These letters are both presented at
the same time to Sir George Cartier. He reads them over, he makes some objection to
the last page of the long letter. The paragraph is altered. He changes the draft
of the shorter one. Mr. Abbott writes, it out for him, and then both, are signed. '
. Both are signed at the same time, and the bargain is struck, so far as those two gentle-
56 MR. BLAKE's
men can strike it ; and yet men of common sense are heard to say that this was not one
transaction—that there was one bargain about the Pacific Railway, and that the money
matter was an independent political subscription, quite apart from the Pacific Railway
matter. Sir, I shall not insult the intelligence of this House by arguing upon this point,
Every man should put it to himself, should consider it with reference to his own private
business relations. Every man ought to put himself—if a man should be asked so far to
degrade himself—in Sir Hugh Allan's place, and fancy what he must have thought—whe-
ther he must not have thought that the whole matter was one bargain. I will not waste
time in meeting the technicalities which I have heard raised upon this point, but I will
simply point out that the law would regard these two matters as portions of one transaction.
There would be no controversy in the courts, but that it was a bargain, and a bargain by which
assurances were given on the one hand and the money was given on the other. Supposing
there had been no letter, would that have prevented the whole bargain from being carried
out 7 Will hon, gentlemen argue that a contract unwritten was not a contract Sir, it
would be perfectly preposterous, and the writing of the two parts on different slips of pa-
pers leaves them still two parts of the same transaction. The hon. gentleman, however,
alleges that he repudiated that contract, and that the letter of the 30th of July was with-
drawn. I deny it Sir, and I undertake to prove, to the satisfaction of every man whose
mind is not closed to argument, that it is utterly untrue. Before I pass to the telegrams
which passed upon this subject, let me call your serious attention to the fact that we have
but the oral statements of gentlemen as to the terms of the telegram of Sir John Mac-
donald, which gave rise to the two telegrams which 1 am about to refer to ; and, Sir, I
maintain that no proper exertions were made, no proper questions were asked, in order to
elicit the truth as to that telegram. I maintain that, if it was of importance to this en-
quiry at all, the Commissioners ought to have gone much further than they did. Who
can doubt that Sir Hugh Allan had a copy of that telegram 2 Eſe speaks of it in his evi-
dence, he refers to it, but he never was asked for it. Who can doubt that Mr. Abbott.
knew about it 7 but he was never asked its whereabouts; who can doubt that it was,
among Sir George Cartier's private papers ? but although the custodian of these papers
was well known, he is never called upon or brought forward ; and all that we know
about that telegram from the evidence is what the witnesses supposed it to have been,
without a single endeavor to have it produced. But if we have not the telegram we
have the answer. Let us, Sir, take that answer of Sir Hugh Allan's. “I have seen Sir
George Cartier to-day ; you may return my letter or regard it as waste paper. It was not-
intended as anything official.” But, the letter referred to in this despatch
is the letter of Sir Hugh Allan to Sir John Macdonald, not the letter of Sir
The Corrupt Agreement.
George Cartier. But what does Sir Hugh say further in his telegram to Sir John:-“Your
telegram to Sir George Cartier is the basis of our agreement, which I have no doubt yout
will approve of.” Why, this speaks of “our agreement " What agreement? What
agreement, Sir, but the letter of the 30th July. But why this form What was its pur-
pose? Sir, its purpose we well understand—its purpose was that the First Minister might
be able to say he had never sanctioned the clause as to giving the contract to the Canada.
Pacific Company instead of a new company. Sir Hugh Allan withdraws his own letter,
and says it was not intended as anything official, but he sticks to the agreement with Sir
George, and says: —“Your telegram is the basis of our agreement.” Let me turn to the
telegram of Sir George Cartier to Sir John Macdonald of the 30th of July and see what it.
says:– “Have seen Sir Hugh. He withdraws his letter written you since you make objec-
tion to it, and relies for the basis of arrangement on your telegram to me, of which I gave
him a copy.” Does this telegram say that the letter to Sir George Cartier was withdrawn?
Sir, that lettér was never withdrawn, and the First Minister knew it. He knew it, be-
‘...
SPEECH IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. 57
cause it was not proposed to be withdrawn. On the other hand, he knew that the agree-
ment was continued, for Sir Hugh Allan expressly said in his despatch, “Your telegram
to Sir George is the basis of our agreement.” Let me now turn to the letters of Sir Hugh
Allan of the 6th and 7th of August, on pages 207 and 208 of the evidence, in which, with
various other details, he states that “an agreement was entered into yesterday.” Sir, that
letter is substantially true, if the letter of Sir George Cartier had not been withdrawn;
but it is false, utterly false, if the letter had been withdrawn. Therefore, the written evi-
dence of Sir Hugh at the time corroborates the proposition that the letter of Sir George
Sir Hugh's Conversion.
Cartier was not withdrawn. But, I have more evidence yet. On the 9th of August Sir
Hugh Allan attended a public meeting, these terms, as it would appear, having been then
recently arranged; and I must say that everything points to something having been said,
done, and talked over between the 30th of July and the 6th of August, which we have
uot yet heard of, because on the 6th and 7th of August the letters of Sir Hugh speak of
an agreement made “yesterday,” and on the 9th you find Sir Hugh speaking at a public
meeting. Had the public speeches of Ministers, and the effect of their great policy, pre-
vailed upon him 7 Did he, from motives of patriotism, think it was his duty to rise up and
support the party who had done so much for the country? Was he swayed by the argu-
ments of the First Minister with reference to Nova Scotia and Manitoba, and the other
Provinces which he had brought into the Union; or did he come out and speak out
because he had learned of the earnest and patriotic desire of the Ministers to uphold
British connection, which is their only object in clinging to their places? Had these many
virtues, as sometimes happens even with an old man, as sometimes happens even with a
man of such deep-seated convictions as Sir Hugh Allan, persuaded him of the error of his
ways, and caused him to come out and support Sir George E. Cartier, whom he had but
a few days before so bitterly, so effectively, opposed? Let me read you his words on the
hustings, at Montreal on the 9th August, at Sir George Cartier's nomination, “You are
aware,” he says, “that two rival Companies have been contending for the contract to
build the Pacific Railroad. The policy of the Government is to have these two Companies
amalgamated, and then to give the contract to the Company thus formed.” You observe
that in the meantime it was stated that there would probably be an amalgamation, and
at any rate it seems to have been thought better to leave to the future the consideration
of what was to be done if amalgamation should not take place. He goes on to say, “The
terminus to be at or near Nipissing, and arrangements are in progress for the construc-
tion of a branch from there to Hull, where it will join the Northern Colonization Railway,
thus virtually bringing the terminus of the Pacific Railroad to the east
end of the city of Montreal. Measures to secure this amalgamation are already
in progress. Your representative, Sir George Cartier, coincides with me
on all these points, and in the basis of arrangement, which he has agreed to, and com-
mends to his colleagues in the Ministry on the Pacific Railroad question, they have been
carefully kept in view.” Sir, this is a public declaration, made alongside of Sir George
Cartier by Sir Hugh Allan, who it appears had undergone a change of feeling, so far as Sir
George was concerned ; that the basis of an arrangement had been arrived at between
them, which the latter had agreed to recommend to his colleagues. But he says still
further—of course yºn Know that it was only “the basis of an arrangement” that had been
arrived at-“but I am satisfied that if the views expressed by Sir George Cartier are
adopted by the Government, as from their reasonable nature there is every reason to
expect they will, the interests of this city and Lower Canada will be secured, while, at
the same time, every consideration is given to all the other Provinces in the Dominion. J.
think no time should be lost in getting the contract prepared, and signed as soon as the
Government can meet. I have every reason to be satisfied with what Sir George has done,
‘s.
*º-
-58 • MR. BLARE's
and I believe the results will be approved by all. A speaker at one of the political meet. “
rings in this city last week, ventured to insinuate that in my negotiations with your
representative, I was contending for the interests of the lines of steamship with which I
am connected, as much as for the railroad. This statement is entirely void of truth. I
assure you, gentlemen, that the subject of steamship or mail contract never was alluded .
to if any of these discussions, directly or indirectly, and I appeal to Sir George Cartier
himself to confirm the statement I now make—that I have made no attempt in any.
way tº connect the Steamship Company or its vessels with the subject discussed. The
railroad, and that alone, has been under consideration.” I am afraid, Sir, I am obliged
to retract some of the observations I made with reference to the questions of high public.
policy which induced the conversion of Sir Eugh Atlan. I am afraid my recollection was
Sir Hugh's Motives. A. -
inaccurate, and that I must now admit that at th’s time my friend Sir Hugh Allan was
Anot animated by those high motives, but by the consideration, “How am I to get the con-
tract for the Pacific Railway, or the Presidency of the Pacifle Railway Company?” But it.
is said that in fact he got nothing, Was the Presidency nothing? Was the telegram no.
thing? Was the basis of agreement nothing? Let us look at this for a moment. What
did the contending parties think of it ; what did Mr. Macpherson think of it? Did he
think it was nothing; that it was all the same whether he was at one end of the board of
thirteen gentlemen or the other? Did he think that the President would have no more
influence, no more weight than his personal position would give him as a Director at the
Board, at:d that, if not President, Sir Hugh Allan would exercise as much influence 2 He
thóught nothing of the hind ; everythin g shows that the question of the Presidency was
a vital question. It was what Sir Hugh Allan wanted; it was what Mr. Macpherson did
not want him to get, and what he was determined he should not have. Was it anything
or was it notling? What was Sir Hugh Allan doing before he got that offer. What did
he agree to do in consideration of that offer? And what has he done on account of .
that offer 2 Sir, as I have said, it was in consideration of that , offer,
and not until he cºme to an arrangement with the Government by which he was assured
of that offer, that, till then hostile, he turned round and supported them, and furnished
thera with a large sum of money to corrupt the electors of this country. And yet hon.
Sir Hugh makes his Bargain. -
gentlemen will have us believe that it was nothing at all. It is enough for us to know
that Sir Hugh Allan and the Government thought it was something; that he fought them .
Intil he got it, and that he then helped them ; that he got his terms, and gave his price.
Lock at the contract; what was his bargain Ž It was one which was of sufficient import-
ance to induce him to make an expenditure of extraordinary sums of money. But does
he iſ tend to pay that raoney himself. Nº, Sir ; he makes a contract with the Americans;
they arrange to take $5,500,000 out of $10,000,000 of stock, Sir Hugh taking the remain-
irg $4,500,000, but the Americans paying 10 per cent, on the whole $10,000,000, the
profits of the enterprise to be applied in the first place to recoup this expenditure, and
afterwards to be divided in proportion to their interests. They were thus to pay at once
for his benefit $450,000, and in the end he was to be saved from the expenditure of a single
dollar. The Company had paid $40,000 for preliminary expenses. The hon, gentleman
says the preliminary expenses in starting any company exceed $40,000. Sir, that may
be; the hc l, gentleman has had more experience in that direction than I have ; but you,'
Mr. Speak r, know it only requires $100 to pay the Parliamentary expenses of getting a
Bill through this House. But perhaps the idea of the hon, gentleman is, that preliminary.
"expenses in all cases include not only the expense of legislation in this House, but the sub-
sidizing of newspapers and individuals. If that is his idea I congratulate him upon his .
otions of purity and morality in these matters. But besides those preliminary expensés, Sir
r; "
SPEECH IN THE House of commons. '59
"Hagh Allah was prepared with ammunition, to be furnished him by the Americans—am-
munition which he would not “waste upon inferior Ministers”—such as some of those I
now see before me. Look, Sir, at his letters to the Americans, letters which the hon.
Minister of Finance rightly pronounces to be infamous. In one of these he says “I have
had letters from England offering to take the whole thing up, but it looks to me to be
too good to part with readily;” but he is willing to give the contract to Americans, with
whdm he thinks he can do better than by selling it in England. The evidence establishes
that on the part of Sir Hugh Allan this was merely a mercantile transaction, a gigantic
scheme by which he might make a great deal of money, and some reputation. I dare say
he has lost some money, and I am afraid his reputation has suffered. Now, Sir, the hon.
gentleman has said he was responsible for the action of his colleague, Sir George Cartier,
in this transaction. I rejoice to hear the honorable gentleman make that declara-
tion, because the announcement made on the 21st July, was in contradiction of that view,
and to attempt to thrust the odium on Sir George Cartier would have been a most unjust
and most injurious, if not a most unconstitutional proceeding. How was the money ob-
HOW was the Money Obtained.
tained by which the hon, gentleman retained the position he now occupies? How was the
money obtained which got him the supporters in Ontario and Quebec on whom henow depends?
It was obtained by Sir George Cartier, at the honourable gentleman's own instigation. Before
the pair left Ottawa, Sir John had told him to get the money from Allan, thenceforward
both of them were engaged in trying to come to terms which might enable them to obtain
it from Allan, on the 26th July, the hon, gentleman telegraphs the terms he thinks
acceptable, and by virtue of that telegram he obtains the money. The hon. gentleman
says the telegram was despatched on the 26th, before there was any talk of money. No,
Sir, the conversation in Ottawa was long before that telegram was despatched. The hon.
gentleman says the Government are not bound by Sir George Cartier's action, but they
accept the responsibility of it. The hon. gentleman knew he had to assist in making Sir
George “all right” with Sir Hugh before money could be got. He knew Sir George and
Sir Hugh were at arm's length, and that to obtain Sir Hugh's assistance they would
be brought arm in arm, and when this was done he got the money which could only be
got by cou pling these two gentlemen. And yet he dares to say the telegram was entirely
unconnected with the question of money. Some people say this money was given as a
subscription. 'I have pointed out the words “advance” and “recoup” in the shorter
letter as proof that this is not the case. It is perfectly plain that that document was so
framed because Sir Hugh wanted these men to be under an obligation to him, he wanted
to make them his bondslavés, he wanted to put them in a position in which he could say,
“Gentlemen, one hundred and sixty thousand dollars, if you please. I advanced you the
money, and you promised to recoup me. Of course, there was an understanding that if I
got the contract and the Presidency I should cancel the advance; but I did not get the
contract or the Presidency, and I insist upon repayment.” He did not expect to get the
money, only because he knew he would get a consideration for it in the shape of the
contračt or the Presidency. To say that these words are of no account is absurd, They
were a part of his plan to get the Government in his power, and, in order that there might
be no misunderstanding afterwards as to the price they were to give for what they were
receiving at his hands, “An election subscription,” forsooth ! When you or I, sir, or
any other member of this House subscribes to a church or a charity, or to any of the
purposes for which subscriptions are asked, we do not expect to be repaid; we do not call
it an advance; we do not bargain for recoupment. We give the money and there is an
end'of it. I suspect it is the same with election subscriptions. But this, as I have
shown, was altogether different, and I must do Sir Hugh the justice to say that he never
calls this a subscription. The advance put these gentlemen completely in his power.
5
60 MR. BLAKE's
*
They prate about their sacrifices in the service of the country, they say they are poor men
all. If so, how could they repay $160,000? And if they could not, were they not hard
and fast in Sir Hugh Allan's hands :
It being six o'clock the House rose for recess.
After recess,
Mr. BLAKE resumed the debate. He said:—I was pointing out that circumstances
demonstrated that the object of Sir Hugh Allan in these transactions was to secure the
contract, and that it was thoroughly understood that he was so secured in return for
what he was doing for the Government. I also pointed out that it was sufficiently
apparent that the colleague of the First Minister was acting by the instigation of the
Sir Hugh has reasons. §
First Minister himself. On that question,"let me refer to the passages in the evidence of
the First Minister, which are to be found in the 116th and 119th page of the Commis-
sioner's report. Question—“Had you any reason for mentioning Sir Hugh Allan's name
beyond that which actuated you in mentioning the names of the other gentlemen?
Answer—Yes, I had. I thought Sir Hugh Allan was especially interested in getting a
railway Parliament returned, and that he was interested in sustaining the Government
which would carry out the railway policy which they had inaugurated.” Then the hon.
gentleman proceeds to point out the other personal interests Sir Hugh Allan had in the
result of the elections, but the speech which I read to you shows it was not a personal
interest other than the getting of the Pacific Railway Charter that moved Sir
Hugh. Then on page 119 the First Minister says, “I have no doubt Sir Hugh
gave these subscriptions for the one object of sustaining the Government and
their railway policy in connection with the Pacific Railway, he being assured that that
policy would be sustained with the influence and power of the Government if it remained
a Government.” It was in order to secure the material advantages which would result
from the obtaining of the charter that this advance was made. Sir Hugh Allan's interest
in the elections was not political, but was that of an expectant President and contractor. I
have heard it argued that no harm was done, because nothing had been given to Sir
Hugh from which the material interests of the country had suffered. Can you suppose
that Sir Hugh would give this large sum of money unless he was to get some advantage
at the expence of the Government 2 . Could it be treated as a subscription if his views
were thwarted and his desires not carried out 2. But what have we to do with the
question what Sir Hugh Allan got ? The argument is entirely fallacious. We have to do
only with that for which he bargained. It may add to the infamy of the transaction if
Ministers, after getting the consideration have cheated their confederates, but that cannot
justify the bargain. Men in high judicial positions have been impeached and driven from
Lord Chancellor Bacon.
power for actions less corrupt. One of my hon, friends made allusion to the case of Lord
Chancellor Bacon, and I think it appropriate to point out that the argument of the hon.
gentleman opposite would have entirely relieved Lord Chancellor Bacon from the slightest
imputation. There were two petitions on which the impeachment was founded ; one
that of Aubrey, who alleged that being a suitor, worn out with delays, he presented £100
to the Chancellor that his case might be expedited, but notwithstanding this offering
the Chancellor had pronounced a killing decree against him ; the other that of Egerton
who stated that to procure the Chancellor's favor, he had caused to be presented to him
£400 as a gratuity, under colour that my Lord, when Attorney-General, had befriended --
him, but notwithstanding the present, the Chancellor had decided against him.
Upon the petitions it was determined by the Commons, witnesses being examined, that an
impeachment should be laid against the Chancellor, and that great man fell on these charges.
But according to the modern doctrine of Ministers he was not guilty. They are innocent,
SPEECH IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. 61
though they gave Allan much for his money, because it was not too much ; Bacon Surely
must have been innocent who gave Aubrey and Egerton nothing at all for theirs! How
low have those men fallen who are driven to such base arguments as these ! But all history
refutes them, and every man's conscience warns him to repel them. Again, there is the
Macclesfield case, that of another Chancellor who was charged with selling the Masterships
in Chancery. He said he did not sell the offices, he only received presents from the persons
on whom the offices were conferred, just as here the Minister says he did not sell the Charter
or the Presidency, he only received a present from the person on whom those things were
conferred. This case was also decided against the bribed Chancellor. Was the $160,000
received by the Administration a present? No, it was asked for, haggled for, stipulated
for, implored for, begged for in every shape and way. We remember the telegram which
has become notorious throughout the land, which says “I must have another $10,000; don’t
fail me; last time of calling.” Was that a free gift pressed by an ardent political partizan
on his chief and leader? Why, Sir, it is preposterous to attempt to abuse the intelli-
gence of ordinary men with such reasoning. The argument of Lord Maccles-
field's counsel was that such payments were presents only. It was an argument that
failed in that day, and it is an argument that will fail in this day. These
gentlemen were trustees for the public, of the power to bestow this great position. They
insisted on obtaining from Parliament enormous, extraordinary, and unprecedented
powers, and in proportion to the magnitude and gigantic character of the trust and respon-
sibility which they took upon their own shoulders, it became necessary that they should
act with the most jealous regard of the public interest, with the most jealous exclusion of
all private interest which might disable them from forming a fair and unprejudiced deter-
mination. What would be said of a private person having for sale an estate of which he
was trustee, and standing for a constituency, who should say to some intending purchaser,
who was competing for the lot, “I will arrange to sell it to you upon such and such terms.
We shall not quarrel about the details; but I am standing for the county, and I want you
to give me £500 to help to pay my expenses.” Who would hesitate to say that the trustee
had in effect proposed that he should be bribed, and that he should sell his trust Could
he protect himself by alleging that the transactions were distinct, and that he had made a
good bargain for the owner ? No, sir! No, sir! One of the first principles of jurispru-,
dence, a principle founded on no technical consideration, but on a recognition of the frailty
of our nature, is that you may not place yourself in a position in which your interest will
conflict with your duty. What was done by the Ministers ? I will put it that Sir Hugh
being simply a competitor with others for the control of this great enterprise, the Govern-
ment asked him for, and he, at their instance, advanced them enormous sums of Bhoney to
be recouped after the elections—putting the case so low as that, I say they placed themselves
in a wholly unjustifiable position. Had the money been obtained for legitimate purposes,
for the lawful expenses of candidates at elections, they would not have been relieved of
the great difficulty to which I have referred. The Government cannot properly provide
funds even for a lawful purpose, by unlawful means, or from an unlawful source ;
but no man can pretend that these were legitimate expenses. The evidence of the First
Illegitimate Purposes.
Minister, which I have read, demonstrates for what purposes the money was expended.
He has told us that the chief expenses were team-hire, and treating, both illegitimate. It is
true, he said in his speech last night, “I did not use money so as to endanger any man's
seat.” But he did not pretend to say that he took care to prevent the expenditure of that
money in those unlawful ways, or in others still more corrupt. No one supposed that the
hon. gentleman himself would go round to the polling places offering bribes to the
voters. The hon, gentleman himself was engaged in the duties of Commander-in-Chief.
He was engaged with his hands in gathering in from the coffers of Sir Hugh Allan and
62 ‘MR. BLAKE's
others, enormous sums to be handed over to aid the elections of his candidates; he
was engaged with his tongue in solemnly protesting that no Government candidate was
receiving, or was to receive from the Government one farthing to aid his election. These
multifarious, and consistent occupations, I dare say, filled up his time. And, no doubt, he
handed over large sums in gross to others to be applied, if I may borrow a now familiar
phrase, “where it would do most good.” But the times, and the sums in which the money
was obtained preclude the idea that it was used for other than the grossest form of bribery.
I am told some of his colleagues, whom I see on the opposite benches, had to do with the
details of part of this expenditure, and as the application is stated to be an honest
and upright application, I suppose they won't object to say how they applied it. I am sure
the House will be glad to hear these explanations at the earliest moment. Sir, the hon.
Equivocation.
gentleman has wholly failed to offer any excuse or even palliation for the statement he made
to the people of Canada at St. Mary's on the 19th August. Let me read the Mail report,
the accuracy of which the hon. gentleman has admitted. He states that he “appealed to
Mr. Kidd (the Government candidate,) to say whether he had received or been promised any
money from the Government to carry on the contest in South Perth º' Mr. Kidd replied
“not a farthing.” The hon. gentleman rejoined in these memorable words, “The same
answer would be given by every candidate in Ontario if he were appealed to.” And yet the hon.
gentleman had then received and disbursed in aid of the Ontario elections $35,000, from Sir
Hugh. Allan's funds, apart from other payments, and a day or two after procured that last
10,000 ! Comment is useless, and would only weaken the force of these plain facts. Sir, the hon.
gentleman has said that he was driven into a corner in Ontario, that he had the powerful influ-
ence of the Government of Ontario against him, and he has charged that Government with hav-
ing nsed its powers corruptly to influence the elections. As I have before stated publicly, the
hon. gentleman made that charge during the election, and announced that steps would be
taken on the meeting of this House to establish its truth. When we met here the hon.
gentleman did not vindicate that statement. He never uttered a word about it, nor took
any steps whatever to show that he himself entertained the slightest confidence in the
truth of the charge ; but now, attacked himself, now brought to bay, now self con-
demned, now awaiting judgment in this House, he repeats this stale accusation for which he
has never furnished one scrap of proof, and urges it as a reason why his own iniquities should
be condoned. The hon. gentleman alleged a sale of timber limits as an instance of the
means of corruption used, and that was the only instance he brought forward. I, who am
familiar with the administration of public affairs in the Province of Ontario, know that,
for a period beginning long before the general election, the system of the sale of timber
licenses was one, which altogether forbade their use as instruments of corruption, for the sale
- of these licenses was by auction to the highest bidder. There was no alienation except on
these terms, and the statement is so unwarranted that its recklessness will be patent to
every person, acquainted with the affairs of the Province. But if it were true that the Onta-
rio Government had used corrupt means to defeat the hon, gentleman ; if it were true that
the Opposition candidates in Ontario used corrupt means to defeat him, I do trust and hope
that this House will not so far degrade itself, will not so far fall below its high duty, as he
aver that the offences of others are a justification for the great crime committed by the gov-
ernment of this country. Sir, the hon. gentleman's duty was to fight the battle by fair
means. He had his candidates, presumably as wealthy as those of the Opposition ;
he had his private, and personal friends, presumably as wealthy as those of the Opposition;
he had the legitimate il fluence and patronage of the Government, the importance of which
he has intimated to this House, when he has more than crice talked of the enormous influ-
ence and patronage of a Local Government, and if the administrašion can add to these
enormous advantages, which belong to it over the other side, the price of public contracts,
SPEECH IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. 63
then we may as well at once give up what will have become the farce of representative *
Government. It would be more economical to give the gentlemen in power a perpetual
lease of it, than to go through the ceremony of a general election, in which the people's
Evil Precedents.
votes are to be purchased by the people’s money. The hon. gentleman has said that these
acts are to be vindicated by reference to transactions which have taken place in England.
I wonder what they will say in England when they hear that defence of the hon. gentleman.
The hon. gentleman has told us that because, in former times, when England was just
emerging to a certain extent, at any rate, from corrupt influences, when England was yet
familiar with the old borough-mongering regime, when able men, pure, wise, honest, aſid
honorable men, according to the standard of public morality, which at that time prevailed,
thought it not indecent to buy a borough, because, in those times, a Secretary of the Treas-
ury received subscriptions from political friends—not, sir, from public contractors, not as
a condition of public benefits—to be handed over to individuals, he himself is justified ; he
compares a Secretary of the Treasury to the First Minister of England ; and, because a
Secretary of the Treasury received some subscriptions from political friends to help in the
elections, he says the First Minister of England would have received, for the same purpose,
the price of a contract from a public contractor. There is no comparison between the two
cases if the times were the same ; but, thank God, they are not the same, and it is discredit-
able to the hon. gentleman that he should ask us to agree that there has been no advance in
the standard of public morality since the period to which he reverts. I rati et look to
modern, English sentiment ; I rather look to the wholesome doctrine enunciatel, in the
Churchward case, when the Dover and Calais packet contract was cancelled, because of
practices pure as the driven snow, compared with those of the hon. gentleman ; not can
any of the gentlemen opposite, who may yet propose to vote for the Government, resist
the proposition that if this contract had not been relinquished, they would have felt
bound to vote for its cancellation. I believe a large majority would have felt bound
to do that, and yet I defy those who would have voted for the cancellation of the contract
to show a ground upon which they would have so voted, which does not also form a
ground for the condemnation of the Ministers who signed the contract. The hon. gentle-
What was s \id in England.
man adverted to English opinion. If he desires to advert to English opinion, let him
look at the tone of the English press. I am not one of those who are disposed to bow
down and worship English or other outside opinion, whether it be the opinion of law
officers or the opinion of newspapers, but no man can deny that the unanimous conclusion
of the press of a free country upon the character of a political transaction gives you the
fairest indication of what the national opinion is, of what the national standard of judg-
ment is, with reference to that transaction. There is no doubt that the best test of the
English view of this transaction, apart from party views, or views swaying opinion in
favor of the Ministers is to be obtained by observing the tone of the English press. Yet
that tone is one of universal reprobation. Waiving all questions of a bargain, looking
merely at the avowed relation between Ministers and Sir Hugh Allan, the tone is one of
universal reprobation, and therefore we have a very good guide as to what English opinion
is ; and since the hon. gentleman is pleased to refer to old English transactions, as his
justification, I point him to modern English opinion as to this transaction. All these act
were done, the hon. gentleman tells us, for what purpose ? For that high,and holy purpose
for which alone his Government has maintained itself in power—to preserve the connection
with England The great policy of this Government—to preserve the connection between
the mother country and Canada—necessitated and sanctified these acts On what is the
connection based ? It is based on mutual affection, which cannot exist without mutual res-
pect. So soon as we find ourselves confessing that we belong to a lower scale in the rank of
64 - MR. BLAKE's
nations; so soon as we find ourselves publicly acknowledging that a different code of political
morality must exist here' from that which exists in England; so soon as we pronounce
ourselves unable to sustain the same standard of political purity and morality which is
there administered, I say, Sir, the moment that we shall make that confession, if
unhappily for our country we should be determined to make it, that moment one of the
British Connection,
greatest ties of the connection is destroyed. We are not at this time politically upon an
equal footing with those of our fellow-subjects who inhabit the British Isles. They have the
absolute control of a portion and no insignificant portion of our affairs; if you are to add to
the political inferiority a personal inferiority, and if you are yourselves to mark that personal
inferiority—if you are to say that that may be done in Canada which would make our heads
hang down with shame in England ; then I would like to know upon what basis we can
hope for the subsistence of a connection which rests upon mutual affection ? If we become
objects of cofitempt, we shall deserve to be cast away; if we lose our self-respect and the
respect of England, how can we hope to attain that to which the hon. gentlemen opposite do
not seek to aspire, but to which I confess I do aspire—the possession of the full measure of
a Briton's rights How can we claim those rights if we endorse thé action of the
gentleman opposite How can we, with those doctrines of Government, with
those notions of political morality—how can we ask England to give us our proper portion
in the control of foreign affairs : We dare not do it, we cannot do it ; we are under a ban
unless we purge ourselves. Sir, if the hon, gentleman wants to preserve the connection,
he will resign his office ; if this House wants to preserve the connection, it will turn him
out of his office, and so tell him, tell England, tell the world at large, that we in Canada are
governed by the same principles of political morality which govern the English people. Mr.
Speaker, I know too well the influences by which the elections were carried, so far as Min-
isters did carry them. I know also what influences prevail to a large extent in this House.
I am not prepared to go the length to which the Minister of Customs went with referenee
to his supporters, but it cannot be denied that his House is, to a certain extent, aye, to a
large extent, a purchased and a tainted House. Gentlemen opposite have said that every
one of their supporters is branded with Sir Hugh Allan's mark. The Minister of Customs
told us that the amount given by Sir Hugh Allan amounted to a trifle divided among eighty-
eight constituencies. He told every man behind him who was returned for Ontario, that
he had tasted of the accursed thing, that he had partaken of this money in securing his
election. I do not believe that. We all know that a great many of the constituencies were
carried by acclamation, and in others the contest was merely nominal. Nor is it probable
that in these cases much money was spent, unless perhaps to buy off a competing can-
didate. By these we may reduce the area over which Sir Hugh's dollars and other funds.
were distributed, but, all said and done, there is no doubt a considerable element of
truth in the statement of the hon. gentleman. I am not disposed to quarrel with it ; I am
disposed to let him and his followers settle that between themselves. All I can say is, that
though I do not advance the wholesale accusation he made against his friends, though I am
prepared to believe there are some of the supporters of the Government who did not receive
any of this money, yet there are many, too many, who did, and I can understand the answer
that a Minister may give to those of their partizans to whom they have advanced money,
and who may now be saying, “this is a very black business. We do not see how we can give
this vote.” I can quite understand the answer to those gentlemen. “What right have
you to say so You took the money, and now, forsooth, you are going to blame us who got
it for you. You are equally responsible with ourselves.” Some such pleasant conversa-
tions, no doubt, have taken plaee, and some men, I am convinced, will vote upon this occa-
sion, knowing that they had carried their elections with Government money, and thus feel-
ing bound to say that the transaction which procured it for them was an honorable transac-
*
SPEECH IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. 65
tion. That is the unfortunate position with reference to both Ontario and Quebec, But for
that, I have not the slightest doubt the majority against the Government in this House
would be much larger than it is to be on the motion of the member for Lambton. As it is,
Influences at Work,
however, it will be sufficient for the occasion. Other influencee, I am aware, are being used
to diminish our numbers ; I would fain believe that they will not be successful. I am loath
to suppose that it should ever be said of a Canadian Parliament, what a poet of the neighbor-
ing Republic has said of the representative body of that country, when he described it thus:–
“Underneath yon dome, whose coping
Springs above them vast and tall, -
Grave men in the dust are groping
For the largess, mean and small,
Which the hand of power is scattering,
Crumbs that from its table fall.
, Bage of heart, they vilely barter,
Honor's wealth, for party's place,
Step by step on freedom's charter,
Leaving foot-prints of disgrace,
For the day's poor pittance turning
From the great hope of their race.”
I will not believe it. I will not believe that any such influences as we have reason to know
have been used, and are being used, can be successful here. It is true there may be men
sitting here and voting here with the promise of office and preferment in their pockets. We
have men who vote here to-day who may, for all we know, be Governor's to-morrow, or who
may be officers in various departments to-morrow. We have men who may be so influenced,
but I hope they will not be so influenced, for I say, not in any spirit of rhetorical exaggeration,
but as my sincere conviction of the truth, that the name of every man who shall vote against
the proposition of my hon, friend from Lambton will be a marked name, a disgraced name.
(Cries of “order.”) Hon. gentlemen seem moved by that remark. It might not be Parlia-
mentary for me to say after the vote that the vote was a disgraceful one unless on a proposition
to rescind it, but it is perfectly legitimate for me, before the vote is taken, to express my
opinion of the vote and of those who are to give it.
Mr. ALMON.—And we will take it for what it is worth.
Mr. BLAKE-And I venture to say, standing here as an humble member of this House,
known not to have any aspirations for office, that the hon, gentleman will find before many
The End of Corruption.
hours are over, that it is worth a good deal. I believe that this night or to-morrow night,
will see the end of 20 years of corruption. This night or to-morrow night will see the
dawn of a better and a brighter day in the administration of our public affairs. I am not
concerned to answer—I disdain to answer the foul and reckless charges which the first Min-
ister hurled against individual members on this side, and against this side as a whole. My
best answer is by my abstinence from such charges against gentlemen opposite. I have
endeavored, so far as I could, to confine myself to fair statements of the facts, and to fair
deductions from those facts. I have expressed plainly, as it was my bounden duty to do
on this important occasión, my views of the political situation. I have said, and I repeat,
that the battle is one between purity and corruption. I have never claimed for myself or
my friends that we are the embodiment of absolute purity; nor have I asserted that all the
gentlemen who sit opposite, and who, under a mistaken notion of fidelity to a party leader,
or of fealty to a lost cause, are about to vote against us—are corrupt. Far from it ; I can-
not be so ungenerous; I cannot be so unjust. But to them I repeat my solemn warning,
that they will be strictly judged, and that loyalty to a party, or to a man, will not be held
to justify treason to their country. And for us, sir, who are professing opposite views to-
night, I desire that we shall be judged by them for all time to come—that in whatever
\
• 66 MR, BLAKE's SPEECH IN THE House of comMons.
situation my honorable friends around me may be placed, the position we have taken, the
titude we have assumed, the ground upon which we stand shall be held by us, and if
ot by us, then against us, as the only true and solid ground. We are here to set up
once again the standard of public virtue. We are here to restore once again the fair
fame of the country which has been tarnished ; we are here, to brighten, if we may, that
fame ; we are here to purge this country of the great scandal and calamity inflicted on it by
those entrusted with the conduct of its affairs. I agree with the hon, gentleman, that after
all our efforts we will still be left in a position far inferior in the eyes of the world to that
which we held before these transactions happened. We cannot, even by the act of justice
which we propose to perform; we cannot, even by the solemn judgment which we are about
to render; we cannot, even by the purgations, and lustrations which we are about to accom-
plish, altogether wipe away in other eyes, and amongst other people, the stain, the shame,
and the disgrace which has fallen upon the land. I have no feelings of joy, and congratu-
lation at this result, I deeply deplore the truth of these facts; but I am one of those who
believe that what is to be deplored is the existence of the facts, and not their discovery. I
do not understand that Spartan virtue which deems a theft no crime so long as it is concealed.
I do not understand that morality which will permit a crime unseen, but is deeply shocked and
alarmed for the credit of the country lest the crime should become known. I do not under-
stand the morality of the Minister of Customs, who told us that it was greatly to be re-
gretted, while these things must and would be done, that they should be made public. Sir,
you will not heal the festering sore by healing the skin above it. You must-lance it, lay it
open, cleanse it, and purify it, before you can get good healthy flesh to grow again,
and effect a thorough cure. Painful though the task may be, arduous though it is, I believe
it is about to be accomplished. The night is far spent, the day is at hand. When this
vote is rendered, let it be rendered by every man amongst us with reference to those princi-
ples of public virtue which he would apply in his own transactions as the standard between
himself and his neighbor. Let us not be carried away by the abominable doctrine that there
is a distinction, between the standards of public and private virtue ; let us not agree to the
notion that that may be done in secret which it is a shame to state in public ; let us lay
down the rule that our transactions shall be open and candid, and such as may bear the
light of day; and as the shame exists, as it has been discovered, as it has been conclusively
established, as it has been confessed, lºt is now adjudge to its perpetrators their just
reward. - &